Sean Carroll on Physics, the Multiverse, and Quantum Mechanics | Closer To Truth Chats 

Same, I've been looking for something less on the speculative side so I can form my own opinion.... Without doing a PhD...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Meaningliness is wide open for debate. Are you meaningless as an inhabitant of the Univers?

>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.

This is presuppositional theism and doesn't contribute much to the discussion

What couldn't you follow? I have no formal education in physics and followed fine

How you could watch this video and make that assessment is astounding. You obviously don't know much about Sean Carroll.

@@drefrazier4266 I don't need to know much about him. I know teaching. I know interviewing. I know how to practice active listening; and I can read the face of a person when they are being *talked at* rather than *communicated with.* And that's what was going on in this video.

I don't think Sean think's it's a bad question, just an ill-formed one. It's worth asking, but it might also turn out that the answer is "the question doesn't make sense".

@@deadeaded Douglas Adams had this covered. The answer may not be the issue, the real problems is coming up with the actual question.

Yes!

Not r🎉ally. Idealism is baloney

There's one with Kastrup and Sabine somewhere on RU-vid.

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.

Please write more about what you said. You have some interesting terminology but not quite enough context for my little brain to connect the dots. Like orthodox QM is “linear”, be more specific and clarify the inclusion of the term “chaos” and its implications.