Excellent interview. No time wasted. Just the facts (with a tiny bit of speculation, clearly identified as such) and zero bullshit. Thanks Robert and Sean!
RLK asks questions in the most poignant and encompassing manner and Sean answers them in the most clear, understandable and respectful manner ( in my opinion) which makes the interview and conversation a most interesting and “dare I say” enlightening experience… THE BEST TEACHERS …!!!
When we think classically we think particles and when we think of quantum, we think of the quantum state, then particles. So obvious, and yet I never thought about that until now. Thank you for that one.
That was absolutely the best video on the subject ever !! Interviewer and interviewee delivered wonderful content with great clarity. So then I immediately ordered the book, even though I wont get it until October. Sean is always good, and the pairing with RLK was brilliant.
Given that most here (including me) would be lacking the prerequisites to make sense of a conventional text on Quantum Field Theory. Sean's book offers atleast a small but honest window into the reality of QFT. One that is very likely to provide the crucial motivation, pushing us to reach out and equip ourselves with the missing prerequisites and move into more definitive mathematical readings of QFT.
Thank you for asking such great questions that expose the current limits of our knowledge in physics. Too often, physicists talk about the universe and what exists as if they already know everything there is and can exist even while discussing the many unanswered questions about the universe and nature of reality. Your questions clarify the many details and gaps in understanding that are not so obvious in many other talks and interviews, which help give a clearer picture of everything.
I guess whenever the Schrodinger equation tells the wave function to split, which would chronologically precede the measurement (and supposed wave function collapse) of a quantum experiment.
In other interpretations the collapse of the wave function is defined as selecting one of the many branches or outcomes of an interaction, and getting rid of the rest. The collapse ‘trims’ away the other branches that don’t agree with observed outcomes. Many Worlds just proposes no trimming.
Many worlds like _@frojojo5717_ said is just the Schrödinger equation. No collapse and no *objective* process that splits the wave function into many worlds. The split in many worlds is purely subjective. You and I live in different splits. By communicating we entangle ourselves in such a way that our two realities move closer together in a sense by exactly the amount of information we exchange.
In the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics, do all possible Universes exist from the beginning of time or do new Universes come into existence whenever a quantum uncertainty is resolved? If the latter, do the new Universes come into existence fully formed instantly?
The usual way of thinking about quantum mechanics is that things are in a superposition of possible states until they are measured, and then the superposition 'collapses' into a specific state. The it starts evolving into a new superposition of states. many Worlds says there is no collapse. When we measure a quantum system we become entangled into a superposition of our states with it's states. In this view there is always a superposition, and what we think of as a specific state of the universe is just one way of looking at that superposition. It's like a slice through the superposition of states the same way that 'now' is a slice through spacetime.
I don’t know much of “contributions”, but Sean is the most effective science communicator I’m aware of and his talent as an educator is world class. His books are hard because of the subject matter, but his lectures are the clearest science education available in my opinion.
He's definitely one of a small number. When it comes to quantum physics, not many people do well at communicating it. I'd suggest Carlo Rovelli too, who works on loop quantum gravity. His book Helgoland is particularly good for a general understanding of quantum physics. In fact together they're a good remedy to the typical communication of quantum physics (which is... bad). Sean Carroll comes at it from a many worlds view, whereas Carlo Rovelli comes at it from a "relational quantum mechanics" view (which imo remedies some of the counterintuitive bits of many worlds)
@@かみく-p3j It's just too bad that both Sean Carroll and Rovelli are talking complete bullshit. Sean to sell his books, Rovelli out of ego... and probably to sell some books. None of this stuff works the way they are telling you. Not even a bit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I'm not sure where you're getting this. As someone pretty skeptical and critical of these works, they seem to stand out among many who are like you describe. What exactly do you think is bullshit about their works?
Good program( i shall down load to RE-WATCH) because of the density of subjects. A new book ( alright !) ; with machine learning seems like break throughs are popping ALL OVER humanities endeavors. THANKS ,great work ! Reference quality📚🌐
There's no actual splitting in that sense, rather the universe continues to exist in a superposition of states described by the wave function. A 'universe' in this sense is like a slice through the superposition of states in a similar way to 'now' being a slice through spacetime.
I got the sense that Sean basically said not to worry about such trivial details as that clutters the thought process. Remember that Sean is a stalwart protagonist of how QM is something that is very “nonintuitive” and best left to the big brains.
That was a great interview with one of my favorite guests! One thing I might want to add is that I think Sean came more prepared to the question "how many worlds are there?" Than 10 years ago. I think intuitions shouldn't play a role in deciding if a description of the world is correct or not. Intuition is very important in moral questions and we should consider them since it's the only way to decide on what's good or not but we are not wired to perceive/sense truth but to survive and leave descendents. I think Robert pushed unnecessarily on intuitions to dismiss the many worlds interpretation, that regardless if true or not, the amount of worlds shouldn't be part of the decision making to decide to accept or reject the theory. There's no difference between having two or 10⁵⁰⁰ since the discussion is about the procedure and not the outcome. It's like dismissing the idea of different infinities because it's counterintuitive since you can't count them instead of looking at the procedure that makes one bigger than the other. Also, I think Sean was a little bit upset, not only considering the way he responded about how many worlds are there but also because he gave an explanation on the AMA about whether the wave function is real or a description of reality which was also one of the questions about the minimal amount of categories to describe the world a decade ago.
But since the theory predicts many worlds, that prediction can be investigated. I didn't understand Seans answer at all, he seemed to argue that the number of world-splits is subjective (how many colours are there)? He also indirectly hinted that there is indeed an upper bound, in proposing that there is plenty of room for them. Granted, almost everything covered in the talk flies over my head, so I don't expect to "get it". I fully understand that the many worlds isn't the point, and I agree that it's a poor attack that there are just too damn many. But it appears to be a fair question, how many worlds are popping out.
@@Etomeneka As a high energy physicist who has designed one of the core components of one of the largest high energy physics detectors in the world I can assure you that particles don't exist. What we are measuring are quanta of energy. If you don't know the difference, then the Dunning-Kruger is still strong in you. ;-)
the question of whether every electron is the same comes with some nuance, but that nuance is entangled with the measurement problem and the question of whether the statistics are all the properties that constitute the electron for example. so if two electrons do two different things upon measurment given a situation in which the quantum description of the system is identical, are they really the same? is it the environment that causes a difference in behavior, or is it that all the different possible things happens in parallel resulting worlds, these questions are joined at the hip, the quantum state, that ends up providing a probability map over possible oberservables, is the same in each case, but the outcomes are not, and so there is room for variation in structure for each individual case, for a description of the environment and for the electron itself, as a spacetime entity built up from other structure or whatever it is you describe the variation by. many worlds just says every outcome happens and there is not any additional structure necessarily, i dont find this satisfying to explain the outcomes but it is the absolute minimalist choice. then you can build models of additional variables and structure that represents the reasons why one electron comes out spinning clockwise and another counterclockwise in an experiment where the wavefunction you would choose to describe it initially is identical. i see it at basically the only two viable options, although i think it is not satisfactory to pick the many worlds as an explanation, it simply is what the states do if you let them evolve and choose not to try to explain why each instance end up a certain way empirically. because quantum mechanics or any other theory will provide a probability map for observables in spacetime, which is the only option, with probabilities between 0 and 1 for any possible observable deterministic if the only predictions have probability 1, and descritpions akin to quantum mechanics if the gap between things that does and does not happen is not closed. it is important to stress that a theory that doesnt meet this criteria is nonsense, something is either observed or it is not, with some frequency, and for that reason any theory even in a newtonian that predicts the right frequencies between observed outcomes and the correlations between them is sufficient to explain whatever outcomes could possibly ever be measured. it is impossible to imagine experimental outcomes that could not be explained perfectly by a theory in newtonian form if you allow arbitrarily complicated actions governing the frequencies of different kinds of observables, this is a simple consequence of what a possible probability map looks like. this does not mean newton was right or f=ma is correct or better worded is a good way to set such a theory up mathematically, but the basic essence of a theory with spacetime variables that predicts outcomes is a good one, and it is never possible to show that the most accurate probability map that can be constructed has any probabilities bellow 1, all that means is that whatever is measured there is a mathematical form that predicts that sequence of a events of exact kind, whether all of reality can be posed in such a form without it being a very contrived after the fact listing of facts in a compact form remains to be seen. but there is nothing special in general about quantum mechanics, other than that the deterministic "newtonian" style descriptions that would predict outcomes would have to be much more complicated than simple field theories with very simple relations between postisions and momenta and force laws governing evolution of those variables, one can draw on an analogy of human drivers self organizing into patterns of motion based on complcated structures called brains, not just because of the distances between the cars directly, a similar deeper structure would need to be evoked to explain the difference between the outcomes of one electron and another given an identical wave function description. the brain in this analogy should not be viewed as some analog of electrons with agency, but just some spacetime structure hiding deep in the woodwork, capable of producing a force law that can sometimes result in one outcome and sometimes another even though the intitial state looks more or less identical at a higher level. many worlds says that every outcome must have some reality to it, my point of view is that each possible outcome has spesific substructure associated with it in which there is a deeper law that makes a certain outcome deterministic in a single instance, but the wavefunction describes the statistics of an attractor associated with such a system, like an electron in an experimental setup. in either case all the possible outcomes belong to the type of system in question, the question just remains whether each instance is determined by additional information hidden in the world each time we run the experiment, while given our knowledge, we can only predict the sort of weighted sum depending only on an attractor of such a system, like an electron flying through a stern gerlach experiment, sorry for typos, a bit sleepy this morning and so i will not correct it :).
It has to be “NEW” vs a retread as the shilling is for a JUST RELEASED BOOK. Sean always comes freely available for interviews when he has a new book to push.
I again propose that what we have in this world can be explained and we don’t need a lot of magic and worlds outside our own to eventually be able to get the results we need and an explanation that we can accept.
Difference of approach to understanding the Universe. Empiricism addresses the detectable that can be measured and replicated. The mind hence consciousness is present but not material.
12:35 “all at once”…..IMHO no such thing as aao. Time is the emergent illusion at the classical.Even a classical measurement is never identical each time you repeat. It only appears that things can be precisely copied and repeated.
Multiverse being taken seriously is always a huge red flag to me. I'm of the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" school, and, well, Multiverse quacks ducklike. I wonder if the topics covered in Sean Carroll's book cannot be reframed in terms of quantum contextuality - e.g., Kochen & Specker (1967) and Bell's theorem. Reframing these topics in terms of phenomenology at the subatomic level (contextuality) will still lend themselves to the stochastic interpretations (likelihoods and probability distributions) applicable in Sean's analysis. "Collapse of the wavefunction", for example - might that not just be an expression of context playing out according to Kochen & Specker ("observation" & measurement setting the context)? Wave function as just a form of probability distribution? This is important because Multiverse gives me the heebie-jeebies, & I often wonder if its proponents have not overlooked something. At 32:11 Robert questions the double slit experiment as evidence for the Many Worlds interpretation. I am relieved that Sean responds with "I would not go that far." Perhaps the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - 32:58 - is itself an expression of quantum contextuality. This is important because quantum contextuality is inconsistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, and Dead/Alive cats in boxes and Multiverse/ManyWorlds don't sound right to me. My engineer's hunch is that something else is going on. At 36:01 Sean says "...We don't agree on whether wave functions are real or not." Good to see Robert applying pressure for specifics towards the end. Like at 55:38 - "... Your confidence level that the ManyWorlds interpretation of QM is correct & real?" Sean responds with "9.5". Sufficient doubt by an enthusiast, right there, to justify taking a closer look at quantum contextuality.
An electron becomes a particle when its energy is changed by absorption or acceleration. Accelerating electrons as they pass through the slits of the two slit of the diffraction experiment should result in a decrease in the diffraction pattern, and an increase in in particles passing. This could be confirmed or disproved with a simple experiment using a CRT .
You say that quantum systems don't subsist at high temperatures, yet electrons exist at all temperatures and you tell us they are quanta of field excitations. How do you reconcile these?
I've never understood the problem with the baryonic imbalance at the beginning of the universe. There wasn't an observer as such so everything would've been in a waveform state and undefined. It would've only become defined later (or not until it was 'observed' and order was 'created'). So sure where are all the anti particles? At the moment particles were defined in their state, there needed to be something to define/measure/observe them. There wasn't. So how was it defined? When was it defined? Of course, this depends on your reliance of quantum physics as an explainer. And it may simply be that we are fumbling around in the darkness.... Maybe order was brought to the chaos at a moment of fluctuation and thus the universe assumed its state as is. I don't have any background in this and haven't studied it, so I guess I'll just sound dumb.
I hope Carroll and Wolfram spend some real time together again soon. I firmly believe they are ultimately aiming at the same underlying structure even if they're currently in different regions of the relevant metamathematic space. BTW, if you're not mathematically prepared for Sean's new series, he has a course on Great Courses / Audible on Many Worlds that stays accessible and I recommend it to all.
might many worlds in a universe be the number of galaxies, multiplied by number of stars around a galaxy, multiplied by number of planets around a star?
I think that most" why" questions are unanswerable and probably irrelevant. "How " is a much more relevant question and one we can answer at least in a practical sense. Just my opinion.
Asking why is the whole point of physics . You want to go back to a cave? Btw. Where do you think the Internet comes from. Answering why questions of course.
I believe that in support of my comments below that there is a need for the following. My apologies: X. DEFINITIONS MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form: SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. CIG has redefined Matter and Space
My humble and little informed opinion on why the universe exists is less grandiose than some think and probably closer to why/how there is so much life in just a handful of mud puddle.
Every computer is a quantum computer, computers compute the Quantity or Quantum of values. Semi conductors of the computers in ROOM TEMPERATURE have reached their operating frequency's speed limit. Transistors are ionic switches that with higher frequency of switching they get hot and create errors / noise. The most practical way of cooling the processors is with Heat Sinks and Fans which we have been using. Quantum Computers are the higher frequency computers with liquified gas cooling pipes. Concept and the technique of parallel processing is as old as the invention of IC (integrated circuit). We can connect multiple fan cooled regular computers in parallel to achieve the same performance of a Quantum Computer, all we need is a synchronization algorithm to compensate for network latency, same as the one for supper computers.
53:36 "Quantum theory is not the same radical theory as RT." (Einstein). P.S. So cleverly arranged: 0.by solving the Schrodinger equation for a free particle, it is possible to obtain a complete state function, which is a plane monochromatic wave and coincides with the de Broglie wave*. 1.This coincidence, of course, is not accidental, since the de Broglie hypothesis was used from the very beginning in the development of quantum mechanics, which received reliable experimental confirmation. 2.But the normalization condition is not fulfilled for the wave function: physically, this is due to the fact that absolutely free particles do not exist in nature, however, mathematically it is easier to apply this function in quantum theory.Why? 3.It should always be remembered that the wave function is a mathematical object and "it" cannot be found even experimentally by direct measurement (arbitrariness in the phase multiplier does not lead to the observed effects, since in this theory it is convenient to talk about the position of a microparticle only in space). 4.Thus, all the successes of quantum theory lie in the manipulation of facts and interpretation: 5.the de Broglie wave "suddenly" coincides with the fundamentally unobservable "?", and gives real answers to experimental questions thanks to de Broglie, 6.and applause to Born or Everett (... and others). Bravo! -------------- *) - The de Broglie hypothesis says nothing about the nature of "waves of matter"; de Broglie waves cannot be considered as waves in some material medium. Their physical meaning has yet to be clarified. And physicists expressed the incomprehensible in an even more vague way: waves of probability or their branching. {However, it seems that de Broglie waves are inertia waves, and the methodical development of this interpretation naturally leads to the identification and understanding of the phenomenon of gravity/inertial induction, and thus the creation of QG.}
Imagine mixing a handful or infinite amount of pinballs the same size together and you still end up with one pinball the same size. Zero dimensional points are the intersections of two one dimensional lines crossing paths. You can’t see them because they are zero dimensional, but are used for locating areas on a map. Like the pinballs, you could keep mixing an infinite number of zero dimensional points together forever and still end up with one zero dimensional point. Let’s say there is one zero dimensional point composed of twenty individual zero dimensional points mixed together. Imagine an individual zero dimensional point mixing with the one composed of 20, it would be still the same as two individual points mixing together. As this individual point mixes with the point composed of 20, as it mixes in it will make the point composed of 20 half as different as it was, then the individual point will become meaningless, because it is now part of one zero dimensional point. You can’t say there is a certain number of zero dimensional points mixed with each other because there is no order in one zero dimensional point. This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points, it has made the point composed of 20 points half as different as it was then the individual point has become meaningless because it is part of the 20 individual points to make one single point. Could this be a result of a point being part of two systems. It could be one point that is in its original spot, and at the same time be a point that has come from its original spot. If 20 people were 20 individual zero dimensional points mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, then every one would agree on what number they are looking at because every one would make one. But if one of the 20 disagreed with the rest on what colour the numbers are, would they form another zero dimensional point. If how many, what colour, and distance apart or away, all combined to form a sense of how fast time is moving, then every one could form a point where one second feels like one second, and not form a seperate point because they disagree with something. That way we can keep just two points existing. The other comment about one millionth of a second I have written about time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything.
This is for Sean: MANY WORLDS SQUARED In the context of the Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, many Physicists' favorite. Though I believe the Darwinian Interpretation would eat them up: In an infinite Universe with infinite Time and infinite particles, an infinite number of things would be happening all at once, as long as things obeyed the Laws of Physics. And if things did not obey the laws of Physics, then the Laws of Physics would have to be changed to allow for those new happenings. Physics Rules. So, somewhere out there those Physicists would be discarding The Many World's Interpretation in favor of CIG Theory while other particles, cohered to be the same Physicists with the same upbringing in the same solar system (as the infinite particles would allow everything), would be praying to Copenhagen. Many World's would exist without the need for world's to split, as the split world's would already exist. But they would split too, since everything is happening and all at once. And instead of the Vanilla Ice Cream Cone, I got the Chocolate which is what I wanted in the first place. This is the Vanilla version of the Many World's Squared Interpretation. In the context of the above, CIG Theory sounds fairly simple and believable. Don't you think? Learn CIG Theory today.
Sean says there is only one thing (the universal wave function). If there is only one thing then: 1) why do all my senses (sight, smell, sound, touch, taste) have different qualities? They seem like totally different things. 2) why are my experiences the only thing I can experience? Other people's experiences seem to be separate from mine.
You're misunderstanding. You're talking about different levels of emergence. All those things are separate but are by described by the wave function of the universe. Saying the one thing that exists is the wave function, doesn't mean all the emergent phenomena such as atoms, people, senses etc aren't real. It's like how tables are real even though they aren't fundamental
Bernardo Kastrup and Christof Koch have recently appeared together on three different shows in support of idealism. Just cross reference their names and check them out. Anyone that thinks idealism is about magic of some sort is badly misinformed.
I'm super curious as to the nature of the artwork behind you, Dr. Carroll... That blue background, with what looks to me like a quasar, or maybe a field line with a g-moment. Is it a finished piece? Go Bluejays!! 🙂
There is no better physicist in explaining difficult topics than Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss. They are very eloquent in speech and very well renowned. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is simply great.
In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with: • True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions • Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity • The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions • Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain. In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like: • The relationship between the continuous and the discrete • The coexistence of finite and infinite structures • Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc) • Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic • The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels. Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing: • Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem • Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal • Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities • The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models • Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities. So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines: In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence. In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches. In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics. At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation. Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities. So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.
The notion of Regressive/Progressive that I mentioned refers to a metaphysical principle at the heart of the both/and logic and monadological framework. It captures the dual dynamical movements by which our understanding reciprocally attunes itself to reality's self-disclosive unfolding. On the one hand, there is a Regressive movement whereby our rational models and conceptual schemata are continually put into question, deconstructed and driven to ever-deeper self-grounding through encounters with paradox, novelty and the bottomless generative potentials of the real. This is embodied by the both/and logic's capacity to positively capture contradictions and encode the way phenomenal disclosures can self-undermine and subvert our prior abstract representations. Just when we think we have reality statutorily circumscribed, the surfacing of a paradoxical anomaly or intractable ambiguity reveals that our descriptive glosses have been premature closures, blind to integral experiential features. The logic's coherence operations and paraconsistent syntax allow registering these oversights without trivializing our previous models. They become grist for an immanent meta-critique excavating deeper strata of determinacy. So understanding doesn't just inertially accumulate propositional truths, but is continually regressively driven to ever-deeper accountabilities and re-grounding through the surfacing of anomalies and generative disclosures from the real's inexhaustible potentials. Classical representationalism is thereby overcome by an iterative process of deconstructive auto-critique tracing our abstractions back to their constitutive symbolic sources. But in parallel, there is also a complementary Progressive movement by which more capacious, holistic and integrated conceptual models are constructed through dialectical synthesis. As our rational schemata are deconstructed back to their inconsistent roots, opportunities arise for positively reconstructing them into higher unities consonant with the anomalies prompting the Regressive unravelling. The both/and logic's synthesis operators allow formulating symbolic re-schematizations binding together prior contradictory glosses as co-realizable interdependent aspects within more expansive wholes. These higher integrations don't merely juxtapose previous models, but transform them into newly coconstituted conceptual gestalts genuinely transcending their contradictory ancestors. So in tandem with the Regressive movement back towards immanent aporias, there is a Progressive reassemblage entering unprecedented phenomenal registers by re-grounding our representations in more holistically coherent reconstructions. Understanding doesn't just shatter into fragmentation at paradoxical impasses, but is perpetually reconstituting itself in a processes of expansive reunification. These dual Regressive/Progressive dynamics enact a reflexive symbolic attunement to Being's own self-generative unfolding. On the Regressive side, our abstracting glosses get undermined and destratified back towards the generative source potentials from which reality's symbolic discloses itself. While on the Progressive side, that very self-underwrimming is channeled into positively rebuilding more holistic comprehensions in perpetual reparticipation with the real's refreshing exhibitances. So the both/and framework's core metaphysical vision is one of rationality's symbolic self-reparameterizing resonance with the unbounded existential generativity it ancestrally co-enacts. Our understanding is perpetually tasked with - and empowered for - Regressively deconstructing its propositional idolatries back towards inconsistent kernels, then Progressively reconstructing more capable holistic descriptions in harmonic integration with the next phenomenal realities disclosed by the Regressive subversions. It's the symbolic embodiment of a post-stultifying metaphysics, where conceptual rigor is achieved not by freezing representations in artificial consistencies, but by dynamically re-tuning and re-totalizing our epistemic engines through reciprocal participation in the generative aventures of the real's own endless dialectical Regressive/Progressive self-unfolding. The both/and symbolic structure allows precipitating this renewed alliance between our rational sequencings and being's self-generative adventuring. An innovative metaphysics where paradox discloses new ontological strata, and contradiction seeds higher dialectical integrations. Our descriptions circling perpetually closer towards the real's own self-constituting dynamical truth by paradox-driven expansions into ever-refreshed coherence regimes. It's the chrysalis of a new metaphysical praxis where symbolic artifice perpetually re-embeds itself in the real's self-exhibiting verities through cycles of immanent deconstructive subversion and positive reconstructive reunification. Existence's own self-revealing dynamical voice finding expression through our Regressive/Progressive dialectical rejoinders. An exponential symbolic recollection of Being's generative plenitude previously stultified under monological representationalism's dissimulative statics. So in essence, Regressive/Progressive names the dual dynamical modalities through which the both/and logic allows rationality to become a partner in the real's self-disclosive adventures again. Not dissimulating reality's complexities through assumptive glosses, but perpetually demolishing and remoulding our descriptive casts in attunement with the real's own immanent self-rationalizations. A new praxis of radical symbolic refreshment in participatory resonance with the irrepressible plenitudinous existential unfurlings of the real's own Regressive/Progressive self-unfolding.
On top of that as Robert finds he is very difficult to communicate with. He traffics in obsfucation . Robert’s question near the end about how many worlds can theoretically be generated in a second was reasonable! Sean cops out by calling it a human construct yet earlier confirms that it is part of the interpretation of the universal wave function. Robert is asking his question according to that interpretation but Sean is just hell bent on being a wise guy to the point where he actually contradicts himself. That is how difficult he is being. 😂and love how Robert called him out at the end for not being a humble person!! Robert you are definitely Humble good job sacrificing yourself to make that point tho! Lol
The truth is their talking about space, space The largest thing in the universe and is a part of all elements, matter. Elements within space have a force pushing outward and space holds it together. The theory of relativity is another way to show what is happening. Space is the main component of the universe. Space effects matter till matter has so much mass that it counter acts the gravity of space. At this point expansion begins with the help of centrifugal force creating the flat universe.
Imagine this universe as a skin cell of Zeus. Zeus and all the Greek gods live in the Gaia space. Gaia Space is a skin cell of the taller God. The taller God and his parents and siblings all live in the Gaia II space. Gaia II Space is a skin cell of the taller God II. The taller God II and his family members all live in Gaia III space. Gaia III Space is a skin cell of the taller God III.The taller God III and his family members all live in Gaia IV space.
...Please allow me to purpose a simple experiment. Take two steps from where you are, and within 360 degrees from where you stand, choose any random point. Now for either good or bad do anything you want. My point here is that we are currently existing in the Multiverse. Also as you stated here, Time/Space is a Turbulent Flow including Eddies & Vortices moving from ...right now to now... The choice of your decisions made by you also has an effect down line thru the continuos Turbulent Flow of Time/Space resulting in ...effecting the sub-structures mentioned...respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
1:44 MANY WORLDS ⇔ “most straightforward implication of the equations of quantum mechanics”. So does that make it “more elegant” or “more correct” because it is superficially less complicated ‽ Or are things like LCD that are messy and complex something less ‽ Always love the “my new book” shilling that occurs.
One millionth of a second is too fast for us to remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all. Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being. To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist. So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans. At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe. Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but are separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously. Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, and at the same time every one makes the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is just the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that is experiencing time different from each other could be a boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one that makes a number. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us. Let’s say we were each individual zero dimensional points all mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second. At the same time, in a span of time that is too short for us to be aware of or exist, we could all make the universe or another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. You see, we are saying the universe doesn’t have a sense of being, and in an extremely short span of time we are saying our sense of being doesn’t exist, so in that short span of time we could all make the universe or we could all make another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. If one second feels like one second to the zero dimensional point on the right, but one week feels like one second to the zero dimensional point on the left, we would see the zero dimensional point on the right as being us. In a super symmetrical way, what if there were other beings that thought the zero dimensional point on the left was them. If 20 people were all individual zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, the 20 would all agree on what number they are looking at because the 20 zero dimensional points would make one single zero dimensional point. But if 5 of the 20 disagreed with what colour the numbers and background were, the distance away the numbers are, and how far they are spread apart, would that 5 of the 20 form a seperate zero dimensional point or individual zero dimensional points, as well as the one they are part of. Imagine if how many, what colour, how far away, how far apart, all mixed to form a sense of how fast time is moving. Then if every one was part of one zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, then no one could form separate zero dimensional points because they disagreed with what colour the numbers are or how far away or apart they are. If every one was part of the right zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, they could be part of the left zero dimensional point at the same time, where one week feels like one second, because no body’s sense of being exists at extremely short time intervals. To us, a hurricane or the weather doesn’t have a sense of being. Our sense of being can’t be joined together by extremely short time spans that we can’t take any notice of, so everyone can be the one universe at the same time. If there were two things separated by time but both exist simultaneously, where one second feels like one second to one, but one second feels like one hour to the other, that would make sense as to why the two things are separated by time but both still exist simultaneously.
Many worlds makes no sense. The wave function isn’t a physical, it’s a mathematical entity. Where’s all of the mass for a gazillion worlds? What about the Born rule and counterfactual communication where information can go between A and B without a particle? There’s no evidence that subatomic particles are physical objects. Heisenberg didn’t think they were. The same with Planck and others. *I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. Werner Heisenberg* *[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. Werner Heisenberg*
>The wave function isn’t a physical, it’s a mathematical entity It's a description of what we observe and how those observations change over time. As far as we can tell it's a highly accurate description, so it seems like there must be something that description describes, that behaves the way it describes it. Many World takes this description seriously. >Where’s all of the mass for a gazillion worlds? There is one superposition of states, described by the wave function. Each 'world' is one of the states in that superposition. Each state is one perspective on the same system, so in one state the electron is here, in another state the electron is there, but they're the same electron. This is just one way of thinking about quantum mechanics, it doesn't change anything in quantum mechanics. The Born rule, etc, all apply. In Many Worlds the Born rule just gives the probability that we will observe any given state when we make a measurement. Many worlds also doesn't say anything about 'physical objects' or the 'reality' of particles, it's just a way of thinking about superposition. I think information theory refutes Plato. We have descriptions of phenomena such as circles, electrons, sandwiches, etc. The extent to which something matches the description, it is that thing. There are no forms, just descriptions and actionable correspondences.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Excellent interview. No time wasted. Just the facts (with a tiny bit of speculation, clearly identified as such) and zero bullshit. Thanks Robert and Sean!
RLK asks questions in the most poignant and encompassing manner and Sean answers them in the most clear, understandable and respectful manner ( in my opinion) which makes the interview and conversation a most interesting and “dare I say” enlightening experience…
THE BEST TEACHERS …!!!
Sean - the most brilliant and clearest 'explainer' of Physics/Science/Nature today!
I'm better
Yeah, Sean is a superstar!
Great discussion. Closer to Truth is one of my favorite channels on RUclips.
this is nuts and i can't find my channel locks! hehe
I could listen to this on a loop - amazing! Thank you 👏
Dr Carroll"s work will get him a nobel prize on 20 years. Amazing theory!
Sean carrol is one of my favorites
When we think classically we think particles and when we think of quantum, we think of the quantum state, then particles.
So obvious, and yet I never thought about that until now. Thank you for that one.
Esta entrevista fue enormemente interesante. Carroll es uno de los más grandes científicos de nuestro tiempo.
That was absolutely the best video on the subject ever !! Interviewer and interviewee delivered wonderful content with great clarity. So then I immediately ordered the book, even though I wont get it until October. Sean is always good, and the pairing with RLK was brilliant.
Sean Carroll, thanks for answering “all” their questions!
This is very good presentation of the book. Appreciate 👍
Very interesting interview. Thank you for that.
Given that most here (including me) would be lacking the prerequisites to make sense of a conventional text on Quantum Field Theory. Sean's book offers atleast a small but honest window into the reality of QFT. One that is very likely to provide the crucial motivation, pushing us to reach out and equip ourselves with the missing prerequisites and move into more definitive mathematical readings of QFT.
Sean Carroll is my favorite physicist
That's cool. Oh, wait... science is not a popularity contest. :-)
Two top guys, RLK and Sean themselves. Let Sean interview RLK one day please, as he must be omnisicient by now!
Thank you for asking such great questions that expose the current limits of our knowledge in physics. Too often, physicists talk about the universe and what exists as if they already know everything there is and can exist even while discussing the many unanswered questions about the universe and nature of reality. Your questions clarify the many details and gaps in understanding that are not so obvious in many other talks and interviews, which help give a clearer picture of everything.
Well, we know that Sean Carroll is pulling your leg. ;-)
How do the worlds know when to split if there’s no collapse of the wave function?
I guess whenever the Schrodinger equation tells the wave function to split, which would chronologically precede the measurement (and supposed wave function collapse) of a quantum experiment.
In other interpretations the collapse of the wave function is defined as selecting one of the many branches or outcomes of an interaction, and getting rid of the rest.
The collapse ‘trims’ away the other branches that don’t agree with observed outcomes.
Many Worlds just proposes no trimming.
Many worlds like _@frojojo5717_ said is just the Schrödinger equation. No collapse and no *objective* process that splits the wave function into many worlds.
The split in many worlds is purely subjective. You and I live in different splits. By communicating we entangle ourselves in such a way that our two realities move closer together in a sense by exactly the amount of information we exchange.
Great Talk! Thank you!
Great conversation. Things got a little heated!
In the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics, do all possible Universes exist from the beginning of time or do new Universes come into existence whenever a quantum uncertainty is resolved? If the latter, do the new Universes come into existence fully formed instantly?
The usual way of thinking about quantum mechanics is that things are in a superposition of possible states until they are measured, and then the superposition 'collapses' into a specific state. The it starts evolving into a new superposition of states. many Worlds says there is no collapse. When we measure a quantum system we become entangled into a superposition of our states with it's states.
In this view there is always a superposition, and what we think of as a specific state of the universe is just one way of looking at that superposition. It's like a slice through the superposition of states the same way that 'now' is a slice through spacetime.
all possibilites exist from beginning.
I don’t know much of “contributions”, but Sean is the most effective science communicator I’m aware of and his talent as an educator is world class. His books are hard because of the subject matter, but his lectures are the clearest science education available in my opinion.
He's definitely one of a small number. When it comes to quantum physics, not many people do well at communicating it.
I'd suggest Carlo Rovelli too, who works on loop quantum gravity. His book Helgoland is particularly good for a general understanding of quantum physics.
In fact together they're a good remedy to the typical communication of quantum physics (which is... bad). Sean Carroll comes at it from a many worlds view, whereas Carlo Rovelli comes at it from a "relational quantum mechanics" view (which imo remedies some of the counterintuitive bits of many worlds)
@@かみく-p3j It's just too bad that both Sean Carroll and Rovelli are talking complete bullshit. Sean to sell his books, Rovelli out of ego... and probably to sell some books. None of this stuff works the way they are telling you. Not even a bit. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 thanks for wasting everyone's time with your drivel
@@graxthal Awh, you are so cute when you are feeling sorry for yourself. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 I'm not sure where you're getting this. As someone pretty skeptical and critical of these works, they seem to stand out among many who are like you describe. What exactly do you think is bullshit about their works?
Good program( i shall down load to RE-WATCH) because of the density of subjects.
A new book ( alright !) ; with machine learning seems like break throughs are popping ALL OVER humanities endeavors. THANKS ,great work ! Reference quality📚🌐
does the evolution of the quantum wave function describe classical motion?
would the vectors in Hilbert space have anything to do with time?
are different electromagnetic fields, electric fields, gravity, and other fields all part of one quantum field?
Robert, please invest in a decent podcasting mic, it really does make a difference. Love your shows.
In the many world’s interpretation, when the universe splits what happens to the mass? Does it halve or double?
There's no actual splitting in that sense, rather the universe continues to exist in a superposition of states described by the wave function. A 'universe' in this sense is like a slice through the superposition of states in a similar way to 'now' being a slice through spacetime.
There is no split. They have their separate masses.
All conjecture...
@@septopus3516 I would say it's definitely definitely not conjucture.
I got the sense that Sean basically said not to worry about such trivial details as that clutters the thought process. Remember that Sean is a stalwart protagonist of how QM is something that is very “nonintuitive” and best left to the big brains.
Brilliant. Getting the book
Same, I've been looking for something less on the speculative side so I can form my own opinion.... Without doing a PhD...
might measurement happen from causation, with time more than space?
The Big IDEAS in the universe Quanta Field Sean M Carrroll number one on book list to get
That was a great interview with one of my favorite guests!
One thing I might want to add is that I think Sean came more prepared to the question "how many worlds are there?" Than 10 years ago. I think intuitions shouldn't play a role in deciding if a description of the world is correct or not. Intuition is very important in moral questions and we should consider them since it's the only way to decide on what's good or not but we are not wired to perceive/sense truth but to survive and leave descendents.
I think Robert pushed unnecessarily on intuitions to dismiss the many worlds interpretation, that regardless if true or not, the amount of worlds shouldn't be part of the decision making to decide to accept or reject the theory. There's no difference between having two or 10⁵⁰⁰ since the discussion is about the procedure and not the outcome. It's like dismissing the idea of different infinities because it's counterintuitive since you can't count them instead of looking at the procedure that makes one bigger than the other.
Also, I think Sean was a little bit upset, not only considering the way he responded about how many worlds are there but also because he gave an explanation on the AMA about whether the wave function is real or a description of reality which was also one of the questions about the minimal amount of categories to describe the world a decade ago.
But since the theory predicts many worlds, that prediction can be investigated. I didn't understand Seans answer at all, he seemed to argue that the number of world-splits is subjective (how many colours are there)? He also indirectly hinted that there is indeed an upper bound, in proposing that there is plenty of room for them.
Granted, almost everything covered in the talk flies over my head, so I don't expect to "get it". I fully understand that the many worlds isn't the point, and I agree that it's a poor attack that there are just too damn many. But it appears to be a fair question, how many worlds are popping out.
I love both of these guys
So, how does he explain the double slit experiment and waves and particles?
There are no particles in the double slit experiment. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Next time you write a comment somewhere, try to have a clue what you are talking about.
@@Etomeneka As a high energy physicist who has designed one of the core components of one of the largest high energy physics detectors in the world I can assure you that particles don't exist. What we are measuring are quanta of energy. If you don't know the difference, then the Dunning-Kruger is still strong in you. ;-)
@@lepidoptera9337 No problem, as long as you agree with me in a parallel world.
@@Etomeneka How many bottles of hard liquor do I have to drink to see parallel worlds? ;-)
So, that's what they do with SDS7 drums now?
the question of whether every electron is the same comes with some nuance, but that nuance is entangled with the measurement problem and the question of whether the statistics are all the properties that constitute the electron for example. so if two electrons do two different things upon measurment given a situation in which the quantum description of the system is identical, are they really the same? is it the environment that causes a difference in behavior, or is it that all the different possible things happens in parallel resulting worlds, these questions are joined at the hip, the quantum state, that ends up providing a probability map over possible oberservables, is the same in each case, but the outcomes are not, and so there is room for variation in structure for each individual case, for a description of the environment and for the electron itself, as a spacetime entity built up from other structure or whatever it is you describe the variation by.
many worlds just says every outcome happens and there is not any additional structure necessarily, i dont find this satisfying to explain the outcomes but it is the absolute minimalist choice.
then you can build models of additional variables and structure that represents the reasons why one electron comes out spinning clockwise and another counterclockwise in an experiment where the wavefunction you would choose to describe it initially is identical.
i see it at basically the only two viable options, although i think it is not satisfactory to pick the many worlds as an explanation, it simply is what the states do if you let them evolve and choose not to try to explain why each instance end up a certain way empirically.
because quantum mechanics or any other theory will provide a probability map for observables in spacetime, which is the only option, with probabilities between 0 and 1 for any possible observable deterministic if the only predictions have probability 1, and descritpions akin to quantum mechanics if the gap between things that does and does not happen is not closed. it is important to stress that a theory that doesnt meet this criteria is nonsense, something is either observed or it is not, with some frequency, and for that reason any theory even in a newtonian that predicts the right frequencies between observed outcomes and the correlations between them is sufficient to explain whatever outcomes could possibly ever be measured. it is impossible to imagine experimental outcomes that could not be explained perfectly by a theory in newtonian form if you allow arbitrarily complicated actions governing the frequencies of different kinds of observables, this is a simple consequence of what a possible probability map looks like. this does not mean newton was right or f=ma is correct or better worded is a good way to set such a theory up mathematically, but the basic essence of a theory with spacetime variables that predicts outcomes is a good one, and it is never possible to show that the most accurate probability map that can be constructed has any probabilities bellow 1, all that means is that whatever is measured there is a mathematical form that predicts that sequence of a events of exact kind, whether all of reality can be posed in such a form without it being a very contrived after the fact listing of facts in a compact form remains to be seen. but there is nothing special in general about quantum mechanics, other than that the deterministic "newtonian" style descriptions that would predict outcomes would have to be much more complicated than simple field theories with very simple relations between postisions and momenta and force laws governing evolution of those variables, one can draw on an analogy of human drivers self organizing into patterns of motion based on complcated structures called brains, not just because of the distances between the cars directly, a similar deeper structure would need to be evoked to explain the difference between the outcomes of one electron and another given an identical wave function description. the brain in this analogy should not be viewed as some analog of electrons with agency, but just some spacetime structure hiding deep in the woodwork, capable of producing a force law that can sometimes result in one outcome and sometimes another even though the intitial state looks more or less identical at a higher level.
many worlds says that every outcome must have some reality to it, my point of view is that each possible outcome has spesific substructure associated with it in which there is a deeper law that makes a certain outcome deterministic in a single instance, but the wavefunction describes the statistics of an attractor associated with such a system, like an electron in an experimental setup. in either case all the possible outcomes belong to the type of system in question, the question just remains whether each instance is determined by additional information hidden in the world each time we run the experiment, while given our knowledge, we can only predict the sort of weighted sum depending only on an attractor of such a system, like an electron flying through a stern gerlach experiment, sorry for typos, a bit sleepy this morning and so i will not correct it :).
might the many worlds in human brain be based on the number of neurons or neuron connections / synapses?
Can’t wait for this
Is this a re-upload or fresh?
This is a brand new interview 💫
It has to be “NEW” vs a retread as the shilling is for a JUST RELEASED BOOK. Sean always comes freely available for interviews when he has a new book to push.
In CIG Theory, Particles are not the Quantized excitation of Fields, rather Fields are the excitation of particles
By excitation here, in CIG, it means higher energy levels or RATE OF MOTION.
It's always a pleasure to see/hear Sean and RLK's exchanges. My take away today... just show me something that doesn't exist...
oh, i hoped there would be a bit more on the electron - the idea that there is just the one electron that hops through time.
My three favorite physicists: Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, and Sabine Hossenfelder.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is my role model.
I again propose that what we have in this world can be explained and we don’t need a lot of magic and worlds outside our own to eventually be able to get the results we need and an explanation that we can accept.
Difference of approach to understanding the Universe. Empiricism addresses the detectable that can be measured and replicated. The mind hence consciousness is present but not material.
12:35 “all at once”…..IMHO no such thing as aao. Time is the emergent illusion at the classical.Even a classical measurement is never identical each time you repeat. It only appears that things can be precisely copied and repeated.
what happend nearing the end? cant be that im the only one to notice
Multiverse being taken seriously is always a huge red flag to me. I'm of the "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck" school, and, well, Multiverse quacks ducklike. I wonder if the topics covered in Sean Carroll's book cannot be reframed in terms of quantum contextuality - e.g., Kochen & Specker (1967) and Bell's theorem. Reframing these topics in terms of phenomenology at the subatomic level (contextuality) will still lend themselves to the stochastic interpretations (likelihoods and probability distributions) applicable in Sean's analysis. "Collapse of the wavefunction", for example - might that not just be an expression of context playing out according to Kochen & Specker ("observation" & measurement setting the context)? Wave function as just a form of probability distribution? This is important because Multiverse gives me the heebie-jeebies, & I often wonder if its proponents have not overlooked something.
At 32:11 Robert questions the double slit experiment as evidence for the Many Worlds interpretation. I am relieved that Sean responds with "I would not go that far."
Perhaps the Heisenberg uncertainty principle - 32:58 - is itself an expression of quantum contextuality. This is important because quantum contextuality is inconsistent with the Copenhagen Interpretation, and Dead/Alive cats in boxes and Multiverse/ManyWorlds don't sound right to me. My engineer's hunch is that something else is going on.
At 36:01 Sean says "...We don't agree on whether wave functions are real or not." Good to see Robert applying pressure for specifics towards the end. Like at 55:38 - "... Your confidence level that the ManyWorlds interpretation of QM is correct & real?" Sean responds with "9.5". Sufficient doubt by an enthusiast, right there, to justify taking a closer look at quantum contextuality.
52:23 Well said‼️
❤ Very good 👍🏼
Waiting for the man of the day, Sean
An electron becomes a particle when its energy is changed by absorption or acceleration. Accelerating electrons as they pass through the slits of the two slit of the diffraction experiment should result in a decrease in the diffraction pattern, and an increase in in particles passing. This could be confirmed or disproved with a simple experiment using a CRT .
Are we so " Spaced Out" beyond that our systems are failing to on the Ground where we reside on the pale blue dot?
You say that quantum systems don't subsist at high temperatures, yet electrons exist at all temperatures and you tell us they are quanta of field excitations. How do you reconcile these?
I've never understood the problem with the baryonic imbalance at the beginning of the universe. There wasn't an observer as such so everything would've been in a waveform state and undefined. It would've only become defined later (or not until it was 'observed' and order was 'created'). So sure where are all the anti particles? At the moment particles were defined in their state, there needed to be something to define/measure/observe them. There wasn't. So how was it defined? When was it defined? Of course, this depends on your reliance of quantum physics as an explainer. And it may simply be that we are fumbling around in the darkness....
Maybe order was brought to the chaos at a moment of fluctuation and thus the universe assumed its state as is. I don't have any background in this and haven't studied it, so I guess I'll just sound dumb.
I hope Carroll and Wolfram spend some real time together again soon. I firmly believe they are ultimately aiming at the same underlying structure even if they're currently in different regions of the relevant metamathematic space. BTW, if you're not mathematically prepared for Sean's new series, he has a course on Great Courses / Audible on Many Worlds that stays accessible and I recommend it to all.
You absolutely MUST talk with Dr Stephen Meyer !!!
After all these years, he’s the guy you have always needed to talk with.
What we see and can't see ?
Two legends! I can't wait!
might many worlds in a universe be the number of galaxies, multiplied by number of stars around a galaxy, multiplied by number of planets around a star?
I think that most" why" questions are unanswerable and probably irrelevant. "How " is a much more relevant question and one we can answer at least in a practical sense. Just my opinion.
Asking why is the whole point of physics . You want to go back to a cave? Btw. Where do you think the Internet comes from. Answering why questions of course.
I believe that in support of my comments below that there is a need for the following. My apologies:
X. DEFINITIONS
MATTER: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion.
While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows:
SPACE: That three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter.
In it's simpler form:
SPACE: Unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion.
That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment.
CIG has redefined Matter and Space
My humble and little informed opinion on why the universe exists is less grandiose than some think and probably closer to why/how there is so much life in just a handful of mud puddle.
Every computer is a quantum computer, computers compute the Quantity or Quantum of values.
Semi conductors of the computers in ROOM TEMPERATURE have reached their operating frequency's speed limit.
Transistors are ionic switches that with higher frequency of switching they get hot and create errors / noise.
The most practical way of cooling the processors is with Heat Sinks and Fans which we have been using.
Quantum Computers are the higher frequency computers with liquified gas cooling pipes. Concept and the technique of parallel processing is as old as the invention of IC (integrated circuit). We can connect multiple fan cooled regular computers in parallel to achieve the same performance of a Quantum Computer, all we need is a synchronization algorithm to compensate for network latency, same as the one for supper computers.
53:36 "Quantum theory is not the same radical theory as RT." (Einstein).
P.S. So cleverly arranged:
0.by solving the Schrodinger equation for a free particle, it is possible to obtain a complete state function, which is a plane monochromatic wave and coincides with the de Broglie wave*.
1.This coincidence, of course, is not accidental, since the de Broglie hypothesis was used from the very beginning in the development of quantum mechanics, which received reliable experimental confirmation.
2.But the normalization condition is not fulfilled for the wave function: physically, this is due to the fact that absolutely free particles do not exist in nature, however, mathematically it is easier to apply this function in quantum theory.Why?
3.It should always be remembered that the wave function is a mathematical object and "it" cannot be found even experimentally by direct measurement (arbitrariness in the phase multiplier does not lead to the observed effects, since in this theory it is convenient to talk about the position of a microparticle only in space).
4.Thus, all the successes of quantum theory lie in the manipulation of facts and interpretation:
5.the de Broglie wave "suddenly" coincides with the fundamentally unobservable "?", and gives real answers to experimental questions thanks to de Broglie,
6.and applause to Born or Everett (... and others). Bravo!
--------------
*) - The de Broglie hypothesis says nothing about the nature of "waves of matter"; de Broglie waves cannot be considered as waves in some material medium. Their physical meaning has yet to be clarified. And physicists expressed the incomprehensible in an even more vague way: waves of probability or their branching.
{However, it seems that de Broglie waves are inertia waves, and the methodical development of this interpretation naturally leads to the identification and understanding of the phenomenon of gravity/inertial induction, and thus the creation of QG.}
Is he Sean M. Carroll from MIT or another Sean Carroll?
I’m 90% sure he’s at Cal Tech.
This is amazing
Loved he published a new book and are busy on many channels.
Many worlds has brought us Einstein 😅.....cause this guy is a spitting image
Imagine mixing a handful or infinite amount of pinballs the same size together and you still end up with one pinball the same size. Zero dimensional points are the intersections of two one dimensional lines crossing paths. You can’t see them because they are zero dimensional, but are used for locating areas on a map. Like the pinballs, you could keep mixing an infinite number of zero dimensional points together forever and still end up with one zero dimensional point.
Let’s say there is one zero dimensional point composed of twenty individual zero dimensional points mixed together. Imagine an individual zero dimensional point mixing with the one composed of 20, it would be still the same as two individual points mixing together. As this individual point mixes with the point composed of 20, as it mixes in it will make the point composed of 20 half as different as it was, then the individual point will become meaningless, because it is now part of one zero dimensional point. You can’t say there is a certain number of zero dimensional points mixed with each other because there is no order in one zero dimensional point.
This individual zero dimensional point that has mixed in with the zero dimensional point composed of 20 individual zero dimensional points, it has made the point composed of 20 points half as different as it was then the individual point has become meaningless because it is part of the 20 individual points to make one single point. Could this be a result of a point being part of two systems. It could be one point that is in its original spot, and at the same time be a point that has come from its original spot.
If 20 people were 20 individual zero dimensional points mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point, then every one would agree on what number they are looking at because every one would make one. But if one of the 20 disagreed with the rest on what colour the numbers are, would they form another zero dimensional point. If how many, what colour, and distance apart or away, all combined to form a sense of how fast time is moving, then every one could form a point where one second feels like one second, and not form a seperate point because they disagree with something. That way we can keep just two points existing.
The other comment about one millionth of a second I have written about time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything.
This is for Sean:
MANY WORLDS SQUARED
In the context of the Many World's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, many Physicists' favorite. Though I believe the Darwinian Interpretation would eat them up:
In an infinite Universe with infinite Time and infinite particles, an infinite number of things would be happening all at once, as long as things obeyed the Laws of Physics. And if things did not obey the laws of Physics, then the Laws of Physics would have to be changed to allow for those new happenings. Physics Rules. So, somewhere out there those Physicists would be discarding The Many World's Interpretation in favor of CIG Theory while other particles, cohered to be the same Physicists with the same upbringing in the same solar system (as the infinite particles would allow everything), would be praying to Copenhagen. Many World's would exist without the need for world's to split, as the split world's would already exist. But they would split too, since everything is happening and all at once. And instead of the Vanilla Ice Cream Cone, I got the Chocolate which is what I wanted in the first place. This is the Vanilla version of the Many World's Squared Interpretation.
In the context of the above, CIG Theory sounds fairly simple and believable. Don't you think?
Learn CIG Theory today.
Sean says there is only one thing (the universal wave function). If there is only one thing then:
1) why do all my senses (sight, smell, sound, touch, taste) have different qualities? They seem like totally different things.
2) why are my experiences the only thing I can experience? Other people's experiences seem to be separate from mine.
You're misunderstanding. You're talking about different levels of emergence. All those things are separate but are by described by the wave function of the universe. Saying the one thing that exists is the wave function, doesn't mean all the emergent phenomena such as atoms, people, senses etc aren't real. It's like how tables are real even though they aren't fundamental
I would love to see Bernardo Kastrup on with him. We need to see a debate between an idealist and a physicalist!
Yes!
Not r🎉ally. Idealism is baloney
There's one with Kastrup and Sabine somewhere on RUclips.
Then there will be a new theory of confusion...😂
Bernardo Kastrup and Christof Koch have recently appeared together on three different shows in support of idealism. Just cross reference their names and check them out.
Anyone that thinks idealism is about magic of some sort is badly misinformed.
I'm super curious as to the nature of the artwork behind you, Dr. Carroll...
That blue background, with what looks to me like a quasar, or maybe a field line with a g-moment.
Is it a finished piece?
Go Bluejays!!
🙂
There is no better physicist in explaining difficult topics than Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss. They are very eloquent in speech and very well renowned. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is simply great.
저는 자유의지가 있다고 생각해요.
In the domain of logic itself, the both/and structure allows formally modeling and regimenting dialectical, paraconsistent and pluralistic modes of reasoning that have long resisted classical bivalent frameworks. We can precisely capture and rationally operate with:
• True contradictions and paradoxes as positively conceived dialetheia, not just logical explosions
• Graded/partial truth values on spectra between truth and falsity
• The coherent integration of seemingly incommensurable propositions
• Holistic properties and synthetic conceptual unities transcending their constituents
Where classical logic is confined to simple propositions statically obeying strict consistency, the both/and logic equips us with an expansive toolkit for dynamically navigating the complex schemas, fuzzy boundaries, and self-undermining paradoxes permeating actual reasoning across every domain.
In mathematics, the both/and logic illuminates novel ways to represent and coherently manipulate previously intractable issues like:
• The relationship between the continuous and the discrete
• The coexistence of finite and infinite structures
• Pluralities of mathematical ontologies (realist, formalist, etc)
• Self-referential paradoxes and contradictions in set theory and arithmetic
• The generation of radically emergent, novelty-creating procedures
Rather than getting stymied by dichotomies, singularities or self-underminining contradictions, the logic's symbolic tools allow formalizing generative transfinite metamathematical dynamics encompassing and reconstructing prior impasses at deeper integrated levels.
Across physics, the both/and logic provides conceptual rigor and symbolic resources for coherent accounts encompassing:
• Unitary evolution of quantum systems and the measurement problem
• Apparent dualities between wave and particle, or local and nonlocal
• Intrinsic indeterminacies, contingencies and ontological pluralities
• The unification of incommensurable qualitative & quantitative models
• Novel "paradoxical" phenomena like emergent nonlinear effects
Rather than forcing phenomena into awkward either/or categories, the logic allows explicitly modeling "both/and" complementary features and irreducibly holistic coconstituted processes. Its expressive flexibility resonates with the exquisite nuances of quantum indeterminacy and pluralistic observable modalities.
So in essence, the both/and monadological framework catalyzes powerful expansions across our most fundamental disciplines:
In logic, it empowers us to positively symbolize and rationally navigate the ambiguities, contradictions and pluralities intrinsic to actual reasoning and communication. Breaking the shackles of binary bivalence.
In mathematics, it unlocks liberating new symbolic vistas for paradox-resolving, infinitary metamathematics and irreducible pluralities of mathematical ontologies. Fracturing the ossified either/or dichotomies stymying classical approaches.
In physics, it provides a coherent naturalistic metaphysics capable of explicitly representing - not dissimulating - intrinsic quantum indeterminacies, ontological pluralities and the full scope of paradoxical phenomena. Illuminating new pathways beyond the artificial exclusions of classical metaphysics.
At every turn, the both/and logic equips our symbolic grasp with greater degrees of freedom and accountability to the phenomenal disclosures of reality itself. Transcending the barren simplisms and premature closures imposed by the blinkered bivalence and subjective filtering of classical logic, math and physical representation.
Where prior frameworks have foundered on paradoxes, ambiguities or the irreducibility of pluralistic modalities, the both/and logic provides technical symbolic machinery for positively capturing and productively synthesizing the full nuances of actual scientific and lived phenomena. Its coherence valuations, graded truth distributions and generative dialectical operations enact a new holistic physics, immanentized metamathematics and expansive reason procedurally accommodating - not dissimulating - reality's explosive complexities.
So in embracing the both/and logic, we are not just adopting a new formal system, but precipitating a symbolic Regressive/Progressive rationally reunifying fragmented domains into a new harmonious co-realizing praxis. One equipping us with unprecedented expressive power, paradox-resolving prowess, and descriptive capacities for illuminating the richness of existence and coconstituting increasingly integrated verities. It is a symbolic turning point towards humanity consciously resonating its reason with the deepest dynamical disclosure of Being itself.
The notion of Regressive/Progressive that I mentioned refers to a metaphysical principle at the heart of the both/and logic and monadological framework. It captures the dual dynamical movements by which our understanding reciprocally attunes itself to reality's self-disclosive unfolding.
On the one hand, there is a Regressive movement whereby our rational models and conceptual schemata are continually put into question, deconstructed and driven to ever-deeper self-grounding through encounters with paradox, novelty and the bottomless generative potentials of the real. This is embodied by the both/and logic's capacity to positively capture contradictions and encode the way phenomenal disclosures can self-undermine and subvert our prior abstract representations.
Just when we think we have reality statutorily circumscribed, the surfacing of a paradoxical anomaly or intractable ambiguity reveals that our descriptive glosses have been premature closures, blind to integral experiential features. The logic's coherence operations and paraconsistent syntax allow registering these oversights without trivializing our previous models. They become grist for an immanent meta-critique excavating deeper strata of determinacy.
So understanding doesn't just inertially accumulate propositional truths, but is continually regressively driven to ever-deeper accountabilities and re-grounding through the surfacing of anomalies and generative disclosures from the real's inexhaustible potentials. Classical representationalism is thereby overcome by an iterative process of deconstructive auto-critique tracing our abstractions back to their constitutive symbolic sources.
But in parallel, there is also a complementary Progressive movement by which more capacious, holistic and integrated conceptual models are constructed through dialectical synthesis. As our rational schemata are deconstructed back to their inconsistent roots, opportunities arise for positively reconstructing them into higher unities consonant with the anomalies prompting the Regressive unravelling.
The both/and logic's synthesis operators allow formulating symbolic re-schematizations binding together prior contradictory glosses as co-realizable interdependent aspects within more expansive wholes. These higher integrations don't merely juxtapose previous models, but transform them into newly coconstituted conceptual gestalts genuinely transcending their contradictory ancestors.
So in tandem with the Regressive movement back towards immanent aporias, there is a Progressive reassemblage entering unprecedented phenomenal registers by re-grounding our representations in more holistically coherent reconstructions. Understanding doesn't just shatter into fragmentation at paradoxical impasses, but is perpetually reconstituting itself in a processes of expansive reunification.
These dual Regressive/Progressive dynamics enact a reflexive symbolic attunement to Being's own self-generative unfolding. On the Regressive side, our abstracting glosses get undermined and destratified back towards the generative source potentials from which reality's symbolic discloses itself. While on the Progressive side, that very self-underwrimming is channeled into positively rebuilding more holistic comprehensions in perpetual reparticipation with the real's refreshing exhibitances.
So the both/and framework's core metaphysical vision is one of rationality's symbolic self-reparameterizing resonance with the unbounded existential generativity it ancestrally co-enacts. Our understanding is perpetually tasked with - and empowered for - Regressively deconstructing its propositional idolatries back towards inconsistent kernels, then Progressively reconstructing more capable holistic descriptions in harmonic integration with the next phenomenal realities disclosed by the Regressive subversions.
It's the symbolic embodiment of a post-stultifying metaphysics, where conceptual rigor is achieved not by freezing representations in artificial consistencies, but by dynamically re-tuning and re-totalizing our epistemic engines through reciprocal participation in the generative aventures of the real's own endless dialectical Regressive/Progressive self-unfolding.
The both/and symbolic structure allows precipitating this renewed alliance between our rational sequencings and being's self-generative adventuring. An innovative metaphysics where paradox discloses new ontological strata, and contradiction seeds higher dialectical integrations. Our descriptions circling perpetually closer towards the real's own self-constituting dynamical truth by paradox-driven expansions into ever-refreshed coherence regimes.
It's the chrysalis of a new metaphysical praxis where symbolic artifice perpetually re-embeds itself in the real's self-exhibiting verities through cycles of immanent deconstructive subversion and positive reconstructive reunification. Existence's own self-revealing dynamical voice finding expression through our Regressive/Progressive dialectical rejoinders. An exponential symbolic recollection of Being's generative plenitude previously stultified under monological representationalism's dissimulative statics.
So in essence, Regressive/Progressive names the dual dynamical modalities through which the both/and logic allows rationality to become a partner in the real's self-disclosive adventures again. Not dissimulating reality's complexities through assumptive glosses, but perpetually demolishing and remoulding our descriptive casts in attunement with the real's own immanent self-rationalizations. A new praxis of radical symbolic refreshment in participatory resonance with the irrepressible plenitudinous existential unfurlings of the real's own Regressive/Progressive self-unfolding.
On top of that as Robert finds he is very difficult to communicate with. He traffics in obsfucation . Robert’s question near the end about how many worlds can theoretically be generated in a second was reasonable! Sean cops out by calling it a human construct yet earlier confirms that it is part of the interpretation of the universal wave function. Robert is asking his question according to that interpretation but Sean is just hell bent on being a wise guy to the point where he actually contradicts himself. That is how difficult he is being.
😂and love how Robert called him out at the end for not being a humble person!!
Robert you are definitely Humble good job sacrificing yourself to make that point tho! Lol
Closer to my struggle
The many world in reality is the many frequencies.
The truth is their talking about space, space The largest thing in the universe and is a part of all elements, matter. Elements within space have a force pushing outward and space holds it together. The theory of relativity is another way to show what is happening. Space is the main component of the universe. Space effects matter till matter has so much mass that it counter acts the gravity of space. At this point expansion begins with the help of centrifugal force creating the flat universe.
Between 50-100 years...hope to see you after that time. ;-)
I want sean in a debate
Quantum theory string theory many worlds interpretation
No kidding that Wilson alone "partly" realized, if satisfactorily, the meaning of renormalization.
Imagine this universe as a skin cell of Zeus. Zeus and all the Greek gods live in the Gaia space.
Gaia Space is a skin cell of the taller God. The taller God and his parents and siblings all live in the Gaia II space.
Gaia II Space is a skin cell of the taller God II. The taller God II and his family members all live in Gaia III space.
Gaia III Space is a skin cell of the taller God III.The taller God III and his family members all live in Gaia IV space.
A thought entered my head. Would a heaven be a different universe in a multi verse?
I feel physic is fun 😅
...Please allow me to purpose a simple experiment. Take two steps from where you are, and within 360 degrees from where you stand, choose any random point. Now for either good or bad do anything you want. My point here is that we are currently existing in the Multiverse. Also as you stated here, Time/Space is a Turbulent Flow including Eddies & Vortices moving from ...right now to now... The choice of your decisions made by you also has an effect down line thru the continuos Turbulent Flow of Time/Space resulting in ...effecting the sub-structures mentioned...respectfully, Chuck...captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
Tree 3 to the power of tree3.......try to behold that......that's probably not even 1....compared to the interactions of particles in the universe
many worlds from future? the future has numbers of different paths, which person(s) can travel? a person's focus can determine a future path?
Love Sean
1:44 MANY WORLDS ⇔ “most straightforward implication of the equations of quantum mechanics”. So does that make it “more elegant” or “more correct” because it is superficially less complicated ‽ Or are things like LCD that are messy and complex something less ‽
Always love the “my new book” shilling that occurs.
How can mass warp spacetime? That makes no sense to me? Why is there anything? How can there be anything? Makes no sense to me either. 🤔
For no particular reason the universe exists. I always thought so too.
Relativity. ;-)
Multiverse is one way for Sean to be ignorant of QM. Hilbert's infinite dimensional world who needs multiverse.
👏👏👏😃😃😃👍👍👍
One millionth of a second is too fast for us to remember or experience, so it’s fair to say that in that short span of time we have no sense of being or our sense of being doesn’t exist. The span of time we can remember or be aware of is joined together by spans of time that are too fast for us to be able to take any notice of, so how is it possible to have a sense of being at all.
Let’s imagine an atom moves an extremely short distance. The span of time it takes for this atom to move this extremely short distance is too short of a time interval for us to be aware of anything, so where were we, or where was our sense of being.
To us, the universe, a hurricane, or an infinitely long line of dominos that are falling down does not have a sense of being according to us. Say one day feels like one second to us, but one second just feels like one second to the person standing next to us, then according to the person standing next to us our sense of being does not exist.
So what if we as conscious beings are both ourselves, as well as the universe. We can be ourselves where one second feels like one second, and at the same time we can be the universe, which solves the problem as not consciously existing at extremely short time spans.
At extremely short time spans that are too fast for us to be aware of anything, we can’t say that we are different individuals because we don’t exist. Every one could be the universe.
Imagine two zero dimensional points. These two zero dimensional points are not in any particular space, or are not separated by any space but are separated by time. Nonetheless, even though these two zero dimensional points are separated by time, they both still exist simultaneously.
Let’s say one second was like one second to one of these zero dimensional points, but one second was like one day to the other one. That would make perfect sense as to why the two points are separated by time but still both exist simultaneously. So everyone could be their individual selves, and at the same time every one makes the universe. All numbers are the same because all a number really is is just the digit one that is a certain way up the number line, but the boundaries in between numbers really are different to the digit ones each side of them. So one of these two zero dimensional points that is experiencing time different from each other could be a boundary in between numbers, and the other could be a digit one that makes a number. Our sense of being may not be zero dimensional but four dimensional. We need to be focusing on a colour to have a sense of being, even if we are just imagining it, which involves time going by. If one hundred years went on while we had no sense of being, it would be like a flash to us.
Let’s say we were each individual zero dimensional points all mixed together to make one single zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second. At the same time, in a span of time that is too short for us to be aware of or exist, we could all make the universe or another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second. You see, we are saying the universe doesn’t have a sense of being, and in an extremely short span of time we are saying our sense of being doesn’t exist, so in that short span of time we could all make the universe or we could all make another zero dimensional point where one week feels like one second.
If one second feels like one second to the zero dimensional point on the right, but one week feels like one second to the zero dimensional point on the left, we would see the zero dimensional point on the right as being us. In a super symmetrical way, what if there were other beings that thought the zero dimensional point on the left was them.
If 20 people were all individual zero dimensional points that were mixed together to form one single zero dimensional point, the 20 would all agree on what number they are looking at because the 20 zero dimensional points would make one single zero dimensional point. But if 5 of the 20 disagreed with what colour the numbers and background were, the distance away the numbers are, and how far they are spread apart, would that 5 of the 20 form a seperate zero dimensional point or individual zero dimensional points, as well as the one they are part of.
Imagine if how many, what colour, how far away, how far apart, all mixed to form a sense of how fast time is moving. Then if every one was part of one zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, then no one could form separate zero dimensional points because they disagreed with what colour the numbers are or how far away or apart they are.
If every one was part of the right zero dimensional point where one second feels like one second, they could be part of the left zero dimensional point at the same time, where one week feels like one second, because no body’s sense of being exists at extremely short time intervals. To us, a hurricane or the weather doesn’t have a sense of being. Our sense of being can’t be joined together by extremely short time spans that we can’t take any notice of, so everyone can be the one universe at the same time.
If there were two things separated by time but both exist simultaneously, where one second feels like one second to one, but one second feels like one hour to the other, that would make sense as to why the two things are separated by time but both still exist simultaneously.
Many worlds makes no sense. The wave function isn’t a physical, it’s a mathematical entity. Where’s all of the mass for a gazillion worlds? What about the Born rule and counterfactual communication where information can go between A and B without a particle? There’s no evidence that subatomic particles are physical objects. Heisenberg didn’t think they were. The same with Planck and others.
*I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language. Werner Heisenberg*
*[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts. Werner Heisenberg*
>The wave function isn’t a physical, it’s a mathematical entity
It's a description of what we observe and how those observations change over time. As far as we can tell it's a highly accurate description, so it seems like there must be something that description describes, that behaves the way it describes it. Many World takes this description seriously.
>Where’s all of the mass for a gazillion worlds?
There is one superposition of states, described by the wave function. Each 'world' is one of the states in that superposition. Each state is one perspective on the same system, so in one state the electron is here, in another state the electron is there, but they're the same electron.
This is just one way of thinking about quantum mechanics, it doesn't change anything in quantum mechanics. The Born rule, etc, all apply. In Many Worlds the Born rule just gives the probability that we will observe any given state when we make a measurement. Many worlds also doesn't say anything about 'physical objects' or the 'reality' of particles, it's just a way of thinking about superposition.
I think information theory refutes Plato. We have descriptions of phenomena such as circles, electrons, sandwiches, etc. The extent to which something matches the description, it is that thing. There are no forms, just descriptions and actionable correspondences.
Just because we don't know why the universe exists does not mean it's a bad question. It just means we don't know why and I don't think we ever will
@@deadeaded Douglas Adams had this covered. The answer may not be the issue, the real problems is coming up with the actual question.