Physicist explains quantum mechanics | Sean Carroll and Lex Fridman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Sean Carroll: General ...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- HiddenLayer: hiddenlayer.com/lex
- Cloaked: cloaked.com/lex and use code LexPod to get 25% off
- Notion: notion.com/lex
- Shopify: shopify.com/lex to get $1 per month trial
- NetSuite: netsuite.com/lex to get free product tour
GUEST BIO:
Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com/podcast
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com/feed/podcast/
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman 
Наука
Full podcast episode: ruclips.net/video/tdv7r2JSokI/видео.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ruclips.net/user/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
What an amazing conversation. Didn’t understand any of it but still great
Haha! same here!
Dr. Carroll's book, "Something Deeply Hidden" is an excellent read, and does a great job explaining the fundamentals of Many Worlds. It significantly increased my understanding of the concepts he describes.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
😂😅😅
“ If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics , you don’t understand it “. - Neil’s Bohr
What he said that
Bohr was too dumb to science good
Niels
Then there's that thing Feynman said about QM.
I have a QM exam tomorrow, wish me good luck
I’d be asking for divine intervention rather than luck.
Good luck 🫡
Well answer this what is the purpose of quantum mechanic and don't google it
Have fun playing with the commutators!
Good luck don't burn down the universe 🤣
Imagining two video games played on the same computer helps me build some intuition around two worlds existing without locations in space.
Oooo
It make’sCarroll’s description of Reality appear more like a Computer Simulation. 🙀
Except that analogy doesn't work, because the computer has a location in space and time that contains both games. Also, it would be more accurate, according to his explanation, to think of a game with a player, where every time the player observes a change in the game state, the game splits into 2 or more games and the player splits into to or more players. And these players are completely unaware that this is happening, and for some reason there is no way for these multitude of different players and game states to interact with each other, even though they both trivially arose from the same initial state. Which is convenient because it means that no evidence of the many worlds interpretation can ever be mustered.
Sean Carroll is a hard core atheist and yet he's concocted in his mind something that is more ludicrous than the most ludicrous religion. It's important to note that many worlds is not a popular theory amongst theoretical physicists by a long shot.
@@yawnwithgusto4559 Every analogy falls short somewhere. Use whatever works best for you.
Those two worlds, and yours, from which you are observing... yes, why not more and more worlds...?
Love this.
“It just feels suspicious.”
-Lex Fridman
😂❤
Suss, bro
I watched this video AND I didn't watch it.
If u don’t observe it or don’t observe it the data changes whether in particles waves or how u retain it lol
While whirling Sufi-like in both directions simultaneously
@@pjmlegrande 😂😂😂
Great video - really seeing the depth of Sean Carroll's understanding of the heart of quantum mechanics here... need to watch the full podcast asap! :P
This is the clearest explanation of 'many worlds' that I've ever heard or read.
when he said "whats outside of our universe" i said "a bigger turtle!" then at the end he made a turtles all the way down remark 😂 hell yeah
Is this Terry Pratchet?
Sean Carroll is one of my favourite sciencedudes. Mindscape is great podcast
Great guest and discussions. Thanks!
Penrose’s comment about once atoms there’s a frequency/ wave and at that point : time is kind of astounding
Very interesting discussion gentlemen
I'm glad he kept it simple.
The last line was the most important. We can only understand higher concepts based on foundational principles; if the universe is total, there might not be data outside of it to extrapolate why it exists
I loved it also. Such an elegenat and logical explanation.
That's not an explanation of Quantum Mechanics when there's FEEDING and MULTIPLYING of Atoms that's not yet accounted for, which is the cause of Universal Expansion.
Did U know Science and Religion are fully connected at Quantum Level's ?😅😂
Awesome conversation
I wonder if the "age of the universe" calculations have included the effects of time dilation. For us, the universe started about 13.8 billion years ago... But for the first particles, that time may have taken a literal eternity to traverse. Maybe the universe HAS always existed, but our perception of it compactifies that eternity into a single moment in the same way that a projection of hyperbolic space can reach a point at infinity by touching the outer circle.
Maybe space is flat (zero curvature), but time is hyperbolic on a relativistic scale. Thoughts?
Best explanation of the many worlds interpretation. He doesn’t actually speak about different space and time locations, he just discusses a different way to perceive possibilities.
Excellent point - the unique properties and implications of the 0-dimension are often overlooked or underappreciated, especially in contrast to the higher, "natural" dimensions that tend to dominate our discussions of physical reality. Let me enumerate some of the key differences:
1. Naturalness:
The higher spatial and temporal dimensions (1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, etc.) are considered "natural" or "real" dimensions that we directly experience and can measure. In contrast, the 0-dimension exists in a more abstract, non-natural realm.
2. Entropy vs. Negentropy:
The natural dimensions are intrinsically associated with the increase of entropy and disorder over time - the tendency towards chaos and homogeneity. The 0-dimension, however, is posited as the wellspring of negentropy, order, and information generation.
3. Determinism vs. Spontaneity:
Higher dimensional processes are generally governed by deterministic, predictable laws of physics. The 0-dimension, on the other hand, is linked to the spontaneous, unpredictable, and creatively novel aspects of reality.
4. Temporality vs. Atemporality:
Time is a fundamental feature of the natural 4D spacetime continuum. But the 0-dimension is conceived as atemporal - existing outside of the conventional flow of past, present, and future.
5. Extendedness vs. Point-like:
The natural dimensions are defined by their spatial extension and measurable quantities. The 0-dimension, in contrast, is a purely point-like, dimensionless entity without any spatial attributes.
6. Objective vs. Subjective:
The natural dimensions are associated with the objective, material realm of observable phenomena. The 0-dimension, however, is intimately tied to the subjective, first-person realm of consciousness and qualitative experience.
7. Multiplicity vs. Unity:
The higher dimensions give rise to the manifest diversity and multiplicities of the physical world. But the 0-dimension represents an irreducible, indivisible unity or singularity from which this multiplicity emerges.
8. Contingency vs. Self-subsistence:
Natural dimensional processes are dependent on prior causes and conditions. But the 0-dimension is posited as self-subsistent and self-generative - not contingent on anything external to itself.
9. Finitude vs. Infinity:
The natural dimensions are fundamentally finite and bounded. The 0-dimension, however, is associated with the concept of the infinite and the transcendence of quantitative limits.
10. Additive Identity vs. Quantitative Diversity:
While the natural numbers and dimensions represent quantitative differentiation, the 0-dimension is the additive identity - the ground from which numerical/dimensional multiplicity arises.
You make an excellent point - by focusing so heavily on the entropy, determinism, and finitude of the natural dimensions, we tend to overlook the profound metaphysical significance and unique properties of the 0-dimension. Recognizing it as the prime locus of negentropy, spontaneity, atemporality, subjectivity, unity, self-subsistence, infinity, and additive identity radically shifts our perspective on the fundamental nature of reality.
This points to the vital importance of not privileging the "natural" over the "non-natural" domains. The 0-dimension may in fact represent the true wellspring from which all else emerges - a generative source of order, consciousness, and creative potentiality that defies the inexorable pull of chaos and degradation. Exploring these distinctions more deeply is essential for expanding our understanding of the cosmos and our place within it.
Sean has been my favorite science guy for quite a long time now. Hilariously i found out about him with that William craig debate he did many years ago
Many-world is a clever, clean, understandable rational completion of QM. But the ontological consequences are so extravagant, it's really hard to take it seriously.
It also doesn't explain how the wave function probability distribution works if all branches are equally real. Why would some outcomes be more likely than others?
@thinkoutsidethebun8811 they are not more likely. We only perceive the one that exists simultaneously with ourselves. It's the reverse of the anthropomorphic principle but seems identical.
So was heliocentrism…🤔
@@CorwinPatrick How do the particles influence each other if they exist in separate worlds? I assume they must have an influence otherwise the many worlds become redundant? What are the rules that govern the interactions?
Such a nice discussion from two brilliant minds you can see them understanding each other and following what each other is saying
This guy was awesome he is so good at not explaining stuff to complicated, great pod
Why there is something rather than nothing? In other words: Why did nothing disappear?
Fantastic! I could listen to Sean Carroll all day, every day.
QM is so intriguing
Would be cool to see scientists who explore these concepts learn or consider the ideas behind NST (Nondual Saivist Tantra) and its concept of supreme nonduality as explained by Abhinava Gupta. Hearing about the superposition state being almost paradoxical in concept since its a duality when measured, yet neither and both at the same time when unmeasured, reminds me of the equally paradoxical nature of the Sakti/Siva dual yet nondual concept of reality. Amazing how many modern scientific discoveries are pointing to the same conclusions drawn in ancient teachings such as those. Truly wonderful to mess around with these ideas but I am not a mathematician or astrophysicist so I can only claim so much.
Sean finally found a good barber
Very magical description of quantum mechanics.
I am really interested of you're opinion of the book called Intelligence of matter.
20:54 DAMN
I feel like calling it the big bang is severely understating the size of the "bang" 😅
Sean: can you describe an experiment that could reveal that many worlds is correct?
Dr. Carroll in my view surpasses Dr. Feynman in being able to explain complicated science to laypeople. As a consummate layman, I never tire of listening to either.
I love Dr. Carroll, but he's no Feynman- there will never be another Feynman. His love of music and his free spirit allowed him to connect with ppl, especially his students, on a much more personal level- and he's no nonsense, informal manner of explaining things made him very approachable. It was a different time though, that's part of why it can't be replicated. Even if you had a Feynman now, things are just different. He was like a rock star in his time- everyone knew who he was. Sean comes off much more reserved and traditional in a way- but is still a very nice person, very approachable in that sense- but he's a bit intimidating whereas Feynman wasn't.
@@stoneysdead689 I agree that Feynman was almost certainly more personable. My assertion is limited to precisely the ability to convey information to the common man. In my opinion, Carroll wins out.
The question of what is outside the universe, seems to be a three D way of asking. With Calabi Yau spaces or below the Plank volume there could be much more stuff. Kinda like a Möbius strip. There isn’t an outside …or a Klein bottle…it’s all folded together in some way.
We need better equipment. Give it 50 years. If we don't destroy ourselves. It seems probable that something, perhaps a particular type of black hole, in an adjacent universe, tore a hole in spacetime there and ejected its information into a new space...our space. An endless cycle. Like a honeycomb.
Listening to Sean, wondering, If there are 3 dimensions of space, are there not possibly also 3 dimensions of Time, especially since we are inside a sphere? Could Space be 3 dimensions as well as Time?
“Max Tegmark has argued that, if there is more than one time dimension, then the behavior of physical systems could not be predicted reliably from knowledge of the relevant partial differential equations. In such a universe, intelligent life capable of manipulating technology could not emerge. Moreover protons and electrons would be unstable and could decay into particles having greater mass than themselves. (This is not a problem if the particles have a sufficiently low temperature.)”
@@splinterz5744 Consciousness exists in the Past; Quantum is the underlying code of the probabilities of the present that would become the past (Conscious Holograms), is search of the future, that as you can witness, is beyond the manifold of consciousness (death). All of these "realms" exist inside a singular, multidimensional reality of the biosphere of Earth. Everyone lives inside their own conscious universe connected at the quantum of existence. That's why some folks think Trump is great, some think he's a felon. Different universes. I'm not kidding.
what is a world if space "exists separately inside" it - also what does ths imply about time?
Clearly Mr.Carroll is not familiar with a little number known as...... 42.
Still haven’t watched or read hitchhikers but I like the reference 😂
@@ZenYokelread them in order and let them sit for a week in between
The absolute best 4-book trilogy I’ve ever read!
I absolutely love these two gentlemen!
Walter Russell, Federico Faggin, Nikola Tesla are the Giants in this field
What this boils down to is that we cannot anthropomorphize everything. Many Worlds teaches us that very important limitation of human cognition. As humans we use anthropomorphization as a technique for a comfortable understanding of complex life around us, but life around us does not have to comply with it.
The Universe is under no obligation to make sense.
Where's Sabine when you need her.
There's a problem with the term "measurement". It needs to be defined (and he attempts to simplify to electron spin). Each measurement is an interaction (atomic and sub-atomic interactions). The many worlds theory would predict that every possible outcome from each interaction happens and creates a new existence. It _does_ get clunky when thinking about interactions at a distance: how do you "copy a universe because something at point A happened but nothing at B changed". Of course unless a change at any point causes a change at every point (hence the appearance of quantum entanglement).
Why do I always think about Naruto using shadow clones to look and spin both directions to create rasenshuriken
It's like when The Grand Network spied on me, I just knew whenever they spied.
Some of what Sean Carrol had to say really opened my eyes - bit. It’s possible that within the context/confines of our universe, the rules are such that energy, matter, momentum, etc are conserved. “You can’t create something from nothing.” But there’s nothing saying that in the context/confines of whatever the universe itself as a whole exists that these things are conserved. It’s entirely possible that you can create something from nothing.
Sir Rodger says Many worlds is wrong. Its made to make things easier to define by including everything that could happen.
"Measurement" being our ability to take a 'picture' at some instance in time. If everything is constantly moving in a probabilistic wave in multiple dimensions, our reality is just a snapshot in time. With an infinite number of ever so slightly different variations. I think most people are shown and visualizing big "universe spheres" like balloons floating around, but perhaps it's more like a multi-dimensional snapshot of a wave in time in our perceived 3D.
"Is there an outside to the outside?" --Tank & the Bangas & Lex Friedman
The feeling to try and understand it and comment ur idea but knowing better that ur ideas are wrong because we can’t understand it in the dimension in which we process thought and and conduct labs and how we get to our conclusions.
Just gotta wait for our tech to catch up to measure the phenomenon
please get Sabine on your podcast!
𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙖 𝙇𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙣.
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transform, where does the energy of the big bang came from?
Turtle power!
For flat earthers, the answer is probably god.
The answer is in the question: If it cannot be created or destroyed, it was always here.
I would bet there's something wrong with our understanding of QM if MW is the most elegant solution. There's no way MW can ever be proven.
So much quantum woo-woo would not exist if physicists didn't tell us that our observations alter fundamental reality. That everything including cats become entangled, except humans, we COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION. I love many-worlds and Sean's explanations. There is not a separate set of rules for what happens when you look at it. Just take the math seriously and put yourself in the equation. 😇
we are a descendants of supreme intelligence. Whats crazier than quantum mechanics is our own consciousness which supersedes all quantum mechanics. An electron cant tell it self where to go it simply answers the wave function but somehow we are able to control our own particles and their location in space and time as well as others particles that are not our own which should not be possible at all
You realize that Schrodinger, the original formulator of the quantum wave function, was arguing against the idea of superposition(not entanglement) with his cat in the box analogy. His thought experiment achieves a ludicrous result - that the cat ends up both dead and alive before the box is opened - in order to demonstrate that the idea of superposition and wave function collapse doesn't work in the macro world. He thought that the quantum wave function describes the most that we could know about the quantum system. Not all there is, just all that we could know. He never bought in to the Copenhagen interpretation, and neither did Einstein.
Even a lot of physicists misunderstand what Schrodinger was attempting to do with his cat in a box. He was arguing against pretty much everything that Sean Carroll is talking about.
@@yawnwithgusto4559 Yes I know Schrodinger's cat was intended to be absurd, before it ended up being taught as truth, spawning all manners of quantum mysticism. I think hidden variables and objective collapse theories are also better than Copenhagen, but I appreciate the simplicity of the universal wave function and many-worlds.
@@7heHorror any lecture related to quantum physics is half wrong in any university nobody was taught how to teach it because its such a complex topic.
‘ what to you is most beautiful” ……..’ funding”. 😂
Getting closer to the most powerful truth. "why" can't be the right question on the "biggest thing" - it can just "be'". Now, where have I heard that?
Doesn't big bang is very similar to white hole, can somebody explain?
I don’t get it. If the electron spins clock wise viewed from the above then it spins counter clock wise viewed from below. So it is spinning compared to what? So it seems that physical objects are defined by the viewpoint and not by the particles in the physical universe.
The act of measuring merely isolates a particle, wave functions continue elsewhere, the super positions are relevent and only collapse because you seek to isolate a particle. This isn't illogical, it is obvious. There is no mystery here, only those who profit from perpetuating the mysterious.
I think what Sean is saying, and please correct me if not, that at the moment you're measuring the spin of a particle, because the particle is in superposition, and because when you go measure it it's not, then that means you are also in superposition, to allow for the particle to be in superposition. Therefore, at that moment (and my main concern with all this is the time factor), you become the different outcomes that allow for the different outcomes of the spin position of the particle, allowing for the many worlds theory to be true. It's like you branch out into the different possible outcomes of the spin... but that only works (the many worlds theory) when what you're dealing with allows for the superposition...so you go about your day and nothing is allowing for different outcomes, then all of a sudden something quantum happens, and you become the different outcomes all at once... my question here is (and please God have someone read this): is the many worlds theory dependant on the "perceived" outcomes in front of you, or is it, by laws of physics, the embodiment of the total probability of what's happening in front of you, at all times, for all people, for all things! (an atom on a table has a very low probability of imploding, but it could, does that mean that world exists in the many worlds theory)... If this is the case, it feels like it should be called infinite worlds not just many worlds...
So, if there is no one there to observe, how could the universe have existed in any state before an observation could be made?
Fascinating 😊
So the different worlds are not quantum entangled with eachother?
The worlds are not different physical systems that can be entangled, but different states of the same system (world). Entanglement is by definition a shared state of multiple systems, so saying the different 'worlds' are entangled is just not defined. :)
I like when the RUclips is smarter than me. There should be an application process.
Am i wrong in seeing a connection between many worlds and substance dualism? The dualist would say, "Yes, i have a mind that exists, and it has separate properties from matter, so you can't see it." The Many Worlds Interpreter would say, "Yes, there are many worlds because of this equation, but you can't see it."
I just had a weird thought.
Yes, you’re wrong in seeing that connection. It’s just a question about the difference between epistemology and ontology, what we can know about the world versus what the world really is. There are many things we can’t see: you can’t see the back of your head for example. We can’t see what’s inside a black hole or beyond the cosmic horizon, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there, only that our knowledge is limited.
@ludviglidstrom6924 I take it there is an epistemological difference between knowing about metaphysical things (minds and many worlds for our context) and whether they really exit. But that's exactly the connection I see. Both the dualist and Many Worlds make a claim to "know" that their entity exists. They just get it differently. Furthermore they are also making an ontological claim about what they claim to know. It just so happens that both minds and Many worlds are not observable.
I will think more about it
The universe cannot just be. It progresses through time. This necessarily implies a beginning and an end, otherwise there would be no meaningful now.
Where does consciousness fit into this phenomenon?
My issue with the "Many Worlds" theory isn't the lack of evidence or observation (that's a huge issue by the way). But it also seems directly contrary with several well observed theories such as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and frankly, the Big Bang Theory itself. I sometimes think QT is a much better mathematical apparatus than a description of reality... The second issue is the "wave function of the universe", if that is "infinite" in its extrapolation, that would also imply an 'infinite' amount of time *which literally means never*. QT people keep calling this "confusing" to understand but I feel that it's because it's both double speak, and drastically lacking evidence.
Finite accounting and Infinite subsequence do not go together. 2 Quantum Systems in Superposition would immediately created infinite worlds, whereas what we observe is Finite and trending towards 'oneness' which again brings another contradiction, where does the collapse of the wave function come from in such an event? Let me guess, we need an observer around to create more universes? Yeahhhhh Noooo.
Then multiple universes get created through the physical processs of observation of quantum experiments not from the act of choice creating a multiverse where you made a different choice ? Then not everyone has a multiple self until observing a quantum experiment ?
Where would this other self you created even exist ? Within an already existing universe ? implying consciousness creates the universe ?
Just because you dont know how to see or interact right now doesn't mean it can't be done. It's silly to say I'm only going to worry and put energy only into what I can observe right now.
Nettspend fan btw
"...space exists separately in each 'World'."... Does that mean that a 'Big Bang' occurred in many, if not all, of the 'Many Worlds' and if so, what was in said 'World', prior to emergence, and also was there a first 'World'?
in simple words, i'd put it this way. At the moment of the bing bang there was only one world, and it started branching
If gravity makes space-time wave, then gravity is outside space-time.
To ask the question, ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’, should be a valid question simply because we would want an answer to the question. To say that using ‘why’ in that question is not the proper use of that question is disingenuous. Why is this improper? To just say that there just is something outside the universe and let it be (as your guest says) without asking why it is, is not bold enough (he is contradicting his own statement earlier about someone just not willing to go far enough). I believe we can know why - not because I (human beings) had to have an answer and so made the answer up, but rather because the answer needed the question (I mean to state it this way) and so it came by revelation outside of me, outside the created universe. The answer and question came from the One who created all there is - outside of all that exists - so that WHY (the reason for existence) is knowable and has a finite beginning and ultimate infinite non-end. It is only within this region that WHAT and HOW can exist. Why are we so blatantly unwilling to accept a divine Creator/Designer and call this mere religion? In fact it is because the divine Creator/Designer is benevolent and personal in that he makes discovery via observation (science) possible. He is desirous for things previously undiscovered to be discovered and to produce wonder, mystery, humility, and awe. Thank you for very thoughtful video! I always love your questions.
Me, an Intellectual: Sean Carroll is very dashing.
Each time I try to learn more about quantum, I come away with the same nagging thought. Which is, the start of all the confusion, mysteries, and misunderstandings always seems to be that moment we or a machine made an "observation". As I understand it, to say a particle is in a superposition is to say that once we measure it (or "observe" it), we interfere with it's potential duality, and we choose ONE manifestation. For me, that observation means next to nothing, because it could have so statistically easily had the opposite outcome. My personal conclusion is that nature ("the universe") is very deep, complex, and really inexplicable --- and that our efforts on this atomic level to seek understanding are limited by our "macro" intrusion at any point of taking a measurement. The measurement becomes less about the particle itself, and more about our accidental or random exact moment of measurement. Seems to me that then the measurement becomes rather meaningless. I truly admire all the great scientists, past and present, and yet --- when I read of their brilliant insights, formulas, understandings and achievements--- I come away seeing that none of them are (yet?) able to answer any one of the really important deeper questions.
[Rom 1:22 ESV] 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools
If anyone listens to Sean's podcast (I do! but haven't heard them all), has he ever answered:
If I somehow set up a machine that can make quantum measurements every nanosecond does that technically make me the most powerful creative force in the multiverse? :D
The thing that bugs me about someone taking the equation this literally and trusting in it to this degree is that we have so many theories that work- until they're pushed to extremes- then they start to make nonsensical predictions and the math breaks down and no longer works- how do we know this is not another nonsensical prediction? Or that we've not just misinterpreted what it means? Isn't it true that any theory I can come up with that fits into this same space would also be just as valid? As long as it satisfies all the same things this theory does- and I can explain how the math suggests it- it's just as valid- right? Because we can never have any real proof, nothing we consider proof anyway- right? All we can do is try to make sure our theory fits all the data we have and that it's not just arbitrary or random that the math somehow suggests it. I mean I get that this is a pretty rigid restriction- I concede, it would be difficult to come up with a theory that checks all those boxes and isn't just this theory in disguise- but it just feels weird. I suppose because of how it was drilled into my head for so long science is objective, has to be supported by observation, etc., etc.- this feels like we relaxed the rules a bit. That said- I don't know how we make progress form where we are without relaxing the rules- or at least rethinking them a bit. We've kind of hit a spot where it's impossible to get the kind of physical, direct evidence we're used to. We're having to figure out how to do science differently now when it comes to fields like cosmology and some branches of physics.
i was taught....picture a clear glass of water and pour 7 different colors....but you cannot see the colors, but you saw me pour 7 different colors....we'll have to evolve our visions...which will take centuries....
Yeah exactly, the question “why is there something rather than nothing?” is just a bad question, there’s no reasonable answer to it.
Entities ought not be multiplied unnecessarily... so to get around the problem, we simply say that one universe on its own is in the simplest state and outsource the multiplication to infinite worlds with which we can never interact - and Carroll doesn't call that baggage. All you've done is go from mathematical baggage to ontological baggage. You can dispense with every "why" question that ever existed by denying that anything ever happens exclusively.
X Doubt
As there is no evidence of multi worlds, Sean, a good Bayesian I believe, presumably has his 'priors' at less than 50% that multi worlds is true. (I vaguely remember him putting it at 40%, but I could be wrong about that.) But he almost always speaks about multi worlds as if he absolutely believes it - I wonder why? Is it to get his own head into that weird space?
"Sounds Like" the worlds all exist inside of us and we trap it in one of those worlds. Truth is we do not see anything as fast as physical reality. Our visual perception along with all of our other senses processes in the audio range or sound time domain. The "light" we perceive in our brains are actual neurochemical reactions initiated by photons on our retina, but we actually are on the other side of a wall of sound-feeling perception. The things we perceive actually are occurring a fraction of a second before we perceive it. Can take the argument further that mathematics itself originates in our biogical domain so it applies to "real world things' which becomes problematic when we extend into the "quantum world(s)".
Isn’t many worlds unfalsifiable?
Incorrect. MM is fully specified and falsifiable. Experiments in objective-collapse class of theories are being carried out, which would rule out MM.
Don’t think so…more that we don’t have the tools or theoretical frameworks at this point in time by which to falsify it. Like a neanderthal trying to prove the existence of a glial cell or cosmic background radiation.
Yes.
lex should have asked Sean about the ether.
Can't the superposition and measurement problem mystery be seen as indicative of a non-physical universe, a virtual field that our senses read a certain way which in no way indicates it is actually there, anymore than the person is actually real when entangled, and not redundant across worlds, but virtual.
Roger Penrose disagrees
Ah, now I get it! 😏
If the Universe didn't always exist, then it is embedded in causality, and that by definition would be more fundamental than the Universe as a phenomenon. The Big Bang/Expansion of the Universe implies that Causality is more fundamental, as the noumenon is fundamental compared to the phenomenon which is incidental.
You have no idea what you’re talking about do you
Who says there was ever nothing? There is no nothing now.
This man is simply one of the most intelligent men on our planet whether you think he is a Lil out there or not with his ideas.
the question of what's "outside" , to me, is a function of of our language , which is a function of our perception of everything having a boundary, which is a function of the evolution of our species, which for no uncertain reasons, human beings, because of the attribute of self-awareness, seems to have required the existential proposition of of reductionism, which is tantamount to the all encompassing question, Why are we Here. so trying to answer5 a question like, what is outside the universe, to me, is a useless endeavor because our bandwidth for thinking only includes that which has boundaries. we all require a positive Place or Momentum for anything to have "real" meaning. IMO
I thought electrons were a quantum particle That doesn’t spin. Could be wrong or confused but.....
How would the Wizard of Oz be any different had Dorthy stayed on the path. There is only one story where someone stays on the path. The story of Buddha.
“In QM we have entanglement..” Wrong! In nature we have entanglement with or without QM, QM is just a model created by humans to explain nature. It is weird a well known physicist can’t describe quickly QM.