Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/w-d-xo.html Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
no its not a step too far, its just basics you are getting wrong, and putting them on something compllex, like the wave/particle duality, and calling it a day. you are worse than non scientists, because you got more knowledge, from other peoples work, too make it sound like you are saying something...you are not! :D its such a joke LOL
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.
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.
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
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 ?😅😂
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.
@@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?
@@CorwinPatrick They are more likely. The Many Worlds theory will tell you there are more branches/worlds created where a higher probability outcome is measured versus a low probability outcome.
If we are truly entangled then both observers should have equal capacity to observe unless there is no such thing as being separate. This concept only makes sense on psychedelics.
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
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.
"Specifically the question why is there something rather than nothing, does not have the kind of answer that we would ordinarily attribute to 'why' questions. Because typical why questions are embedded in the universe and when we answer them we take advantage of the features of the universe that we know" 💯
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?
You can talk about the "point of view of a particle", but its tricky. Photons are massless, as are some other particles, so "From their POV", they are emitted and absorbed instantly, even though we observe them to travel at c through space, which is a finite speed. The unvierse is 13.8b years old, but IIRC The observable universe is something like 80 billion light years across due to accerlating expansion of the universe. WHo knows how large the "whole universe" is.
I wish someone would go deeper on WHYYYY the electrons behave differently JUST BECAUSE we're observing them. Because we're entangled and it's matter and we're matter and there's some energy between us?
They don't. People simply don't remember that quanta are small amounts of energy. Why? Because we teach that in the last year of high school and people don't remember anything from their last year of high school. ;-)
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.
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.
Everything exists and happened… until it hasn’t. That’s how important your decisions are. We are small and so big at the same time. We’re big in time, small in space.
Glad Carol is finally getting found out. Guys career is essentially an XL joke that he's made a business from and kudos to him for that. But come on, taking this guy serious? Mark.
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.
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 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.
Hello Lex and Sean. Once again, this video highlights the problem with Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology today, and that is, physicists are still trying to fit everything with mathematical equations, that are derived from fundamentally flawed conceps of how the atom works, as stated by Sean when he said the way we teach stucdents is a mess, There is an answer, and it is very simple. Forget the mathematics for a moment, and look at the problem Logically in the first instant. Forget the Big Bang, and Cosmic Inflation, they are impossible and wrong. The JWST is proving this to be the case. Forget the idea that the universe began, and consider that it has existed for ever and is infinite. Forget gravity is due to the curvature of space, this is a nonsense. Gravity is a force, but two forces not one. Matter was not all formed in one instant, but is undergoing change continuously. It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled. There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown. This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things. If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript or it can be read instantly on Kindle. I offer a challenge, look at what I propose and if you do not agree, prove me conclusively wrong. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
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.
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 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....
I struggle with the Many Worlds interpretation, and I suspect you need the mathematical formalism to truly understand "where" these worlds are and "why" they are a good explanation for understanding our experimental results. Carroll's comment that "the worlds are not located in space" is helpful but still falls short for me. I understand that it's seen by many to be the most natural solution to the phenomenon of wavefunction collapse. The explanation usually given is: You go to measure (observe, locate) an electron. Before you measure it, it's not in any definite position. It is really a 'cloud', which we quantify as a wavefunction. Schrodinger invented the equation which describes wavefunctions. When we go to measure the electron (by shining a light on it, or running it through a detector), now we interact with the electron, and somehow this interaction causes the electron to move from a wavefunction cloud of probabilities into taking a definite position in spacetime. This is the "collapse" part of wavefunction collapse. The equation spits out the probabilities for finding the electron at every point in space. When we run the experiment N number of times, we observe that the Schrodinger equation is correct, and the probabilities are amazingly accurate. The standard Copenhagen interpretation of this result essentially takes the collapse for granted, and says nothing about how or why it happens. Many Worlds comes along and says "Actually there is no collapse, and everytime some particle/system is measured, a multitude of new universes spawn, and in each universe one of the possible measurements is observed". The entire motivation behind MWI is to address this mysterious collapse by getting rid of it. There is no collapse - when we go to measure/find the electron, we simply find ourselves in a new branch, and in this branch we find the electron where we find it. In other universes, they found it in different locations. The natural reaction of most of us is to question why a near infinite amount of universes being spawned to cover every possible measurement outcome is a more tidy explanation than figuring out another reason for wavefunction collapse. I think this is where a lack of math is hindering us. What I gather is that there is some deeply abstract intuition that physicists develop by their interaction with the mathematical frameworks of physics which allows them to understand the ontological status of these many worlds without freaking out over their existence, or our inability to make any contact with them. Copenhagen is no explanation at all, so in that sense MWI is at least an improvement. It offers a solution to the conundrum. But ultimately it feels very extravagant. I still think ontologically, it makes little sense for the universe to split into copies. It feels like we are missing something much more fundamental about how reality works on these scales, and we are falling back on some deeply Platonist ideas about mathematics and metaphysics to invoke a solution in which Hilbert Space is real and not just a conceptual schema.
@@schmetterling4477 I look forward to reading your paper where you prove Many Worlds, and congratulate you in advance on the Nobel Prize that is surely coming
@@Billybo121 I don't do bullshit like MWI. Everett's mistake can be found in the second sentence of hos thesis. Oh, wait... unlike you I actually read it. ;-)
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
"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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
The question of what is outside is something that has absolutely boggled my mind ever since I was a young child old enough to vaguely comprehend the concept of space and time. Probably 8 or 9 years old. For something to exist there has to be something containing it, always. There cannot be a brick wall at the end. Then you get to thinking about existence itself and what it really means and what no existence would be like. It is such a sad, sad thought to think of existence ceasing. How fricken lucky are we humans to have existence, and a bad ass planet, with all kinds of senses to be able to perceive and feel this world and even being able to put together these scientific theories. Absolutely incredible!
It drives me crazy how much Lex Is overusing the word “ beautiful “ for everything I actually stopped watching his videos because of this and I just came back to this video hoping he forgot that habit and Boom right away we head “ beautiful “
My naive objection to the many-worlds idea is that it seems to violate conservation of energy. At every branching of the possibilities contained in the wave function, new realities are spawned, resulting in a vast multiplication of the universe every micro-second. Just as Carroll says that the space these world take up is inside of them, I suppose he would also say that the mass/energy that makes them up is inside of them, but that doesn't solve the problem. If that mass/energy is massively multiplying every micro-second, that would seem to violate conservation of energy.
MWI is simply a misunderstanding of ordinary quantum mechanics. In the standard formulation the wave function psi describes a quantum mechanical ensemble. An ensemble contains an infinite number of independent repetitions of the same experiment. IF we were to identify the wave function with an actual physical entity, then it, too, would have an infinite amount of energy. We simply don't. The wave function is an abstract mathematical description that does not have a physical realization. Everett did not understand this and that's why he ended up creating this infinitely heavy monster.
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?
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.
The reason there's no answer just re-enforces the simulation theory. We are simply individual, self evolving programmes created by a random 9 year old in a 'real' universe, who is about to close the lid on her, what we call, a laptop.
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.
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
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.
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.
The wave function is not baggage. It's a useful tool to calculate the behavior of quantum mechanical ensembles. And that is all it is. It's an abstract tool. It's not reality.
I thought schrodinger equation breaks down on heavier atoms due to relativity and hence dirac equation provides and takes into account of relativity with a more accurate near result taking speed of light into account😮
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Full podcast episode: th-cam.com/video/tdv7r2JSokI/w-d-xo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: th-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist, author, and host of Mindscape podcast.
no its not a step too far, its just basics you are getting wrong, and putting them on something compllex, like the wave/particle duality, and calling it a day. you are worse than non scientists, because you got more knowledge, from other peoples work, too make it sound like you are saying something...you are not! :D its such a joke LOL
“ 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.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
😂😅😅
Unsanitary
Ya, it's all pretty obvious when you think about it. 😂
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.
Lol! Exactly!
What's wrong with you D.A.? Even I, with my 4th-grade education, understood everything Sean Carroll said
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 😂😂😂
You also didn't use capital letters.
I started reading your post laughing and not laughing.
....then, the wave function collapsed. The laughing stopped too. 🤷🏽♂️
(jk/not kidding)
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...?
Sean Carroll is one of my favourite sciencedudes. Mindscape is great podcast
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 ?😅😂
Pretty sure it goes but very interesting point, still.
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.
Love this.
“It just feels suspicious.”
-Lex Fridman
😂❤
Suss, bro
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.
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 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?
@@CorwinPatrick They are more likely. The Many Worlds theory will tell you there are more branches/worlds created where a higher probability outcome is measured versus a low probability outcome.
This is the clearest explanation of 'many worlds' that I've ever heard or read.
If we are truly entangled then both observers should have equal capacity to observe unless there is no such thing as being separate. This concept only makes sense on psychedelics.
Penrose’s comment about once atoms there’s a frequency/ wave and at that point : time is kind of astounding
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
I'm glad he kept it simple.
Fantastic! I could listen to Sean Carroll all day, every day.
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.
"Specifically the question why is there something rather than nothing, does not have the kind of answer that we would ordinarily attribute to 'why' questions. Because typical why questions are embedded in the universe and when we answer them we take advantage of the features of the universe that we know" 💯
Sean finally found a good barber
I took a pic of this book in the bookstore last week to look it up and now this pops up on my feed. Going to buy it right after work!
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.
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?
You can talk about the "point of view of a particle", but its tricky. Photons are massless, as are some other particles, so "From their POV", they are emitted and absorbed instantly, even though we observe them to travel at c through space, which is a finite speed.
The unvierse is 13.8b years old, but IIRC The observable universe is something like 80 billion light years across due to accerlating expansion of the universe. WHo knows how large the "whole universe" is.
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 love the chemistry between Lex and Shawn Carroll. It's a rare thing to see.
I feel like calling it the big bang is severely understating the size of the "bang" 😅
I wish someone would go deeper on WHYYYY the electrons behave differently JUST BECAUSE we're observing them. Because we're entangled and it's matter and we're matter and there's some energy between us?
They don't. People simply don't remember that quanta are small amounts of energy. Why? Because we teach that in the last year of high school and people don't remember anything from their last year of high school. ;-)
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?
QM is so intriguing
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.
This subject is made by some like Sean to be unnecessarily complex.
I had seen people that make understanding this much simpler.
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.
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.
Everything exists and happened… until it hasn’t.
That’s how important your decisions are. We are small and so big at the same time. We’re big in time, small in space.
Glad Carol is finally getting found out. Guys career is essentially an XL joke that he's made a business from and kudos to him for that. But come on, taking this guy serious? Mark.
Why is that? Because of many worlds? Not challenging you, just curious about the reason. I'm interested.
Very interesting and entertaining. Thank you.
Very magical description of quantum mechanics.
Very interesting discussion gentlemen
Walter Russell, Federico Faggin, Nikola Tesla are the Giants in this field
In which parallel universe? We invented so many of them. ;-)
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.
please get Sabine on your podcast!
𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙖 𝙇𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙣.
Many Worlds is an exotic copout, a clumsy workaround, for something too deep and complex for science to comprehend at this point.
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.
If this doesn’t blow our minds, we either don’t understand or need more psycadelics..
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 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.
Does many worlds make the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation? If so, why should we refer one or the other?
I really don't have an issue believing that the universe is the totality of everything.
But why would anybody believe such nonsense?
Lex , I suggest you study Chabad Chassidic Teachings where all this is explained. Go for it!
Hello Lex and Sean.
Once again, this video highlights the problem with Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology today, and that is, physicists are still trying to fit everything with mathematical equations, that are derived from fundamentally flawed conceps of how the atom works, as stated by Sean when he said the way we teach stucdents is a mess,
There is an answer, and it is very simple. Forget the mathematics for a moment, and look at the problem Logically in the first instant.
Forget the Big Bang, and Cosmic Inflation, they are impossible and wrong. The JWST is proving this to be the case.
Forget the idea that the universe began, and consider that it has existed for ever and is infinite.
Forget gravity is due to the curvature of space, this is a nonsense. Gravity is a force, but two forces not one.
Matter was not all formed in one instant, but is undergoing change continuously.
It is the misconception that the universe is expanding that has led to many of the problems in cosmology. I contend that the universe is not expanding: It has no age because it has always existed much as it is now: It will exist forever much as it is now: There was no Big Bang or cosmic inflation: The CMBR is not the afterglow of the big bang, but a point where electromagnetic radiation reaches saturation, and Redshift is not due to the expansion of the universe, but is due to the loss of speed and energy of electromagnetic radiation over distance and time it has travelled.
There has just been published an hypothesis called ' The Two Monopole Particle Universe ' by ' Tony Norman Marsh ', which fully explains all of this Logically. If you type in Tony Norman Marsh into Google, details will be shown.
This hypothesis can also explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Antimatter, and two forces of gravity, amongst other things.
If you can provide an email address, I can send you a copy of the manuscript or it can be read instantly on Kindle.
I offer a challenge, look at what I propose and if you do not agree, prove me conclusively wrong. Kind regards,
Tony Marsh.
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.
Many worlds is basically the ultimate woo-woo. It is the maximum possible woo. It negates all lesser woos.
@3:42 i don't understand how ''we know it's both'' (referring to superposition), without measuring. How do we know it's in a superposition
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 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....
interesting analogy.
I struggle with the Many Worlds interpretation, and I suspect you need the mathematical formalism to truly understand "where" these worlds are and "why" they are a good explanation for understanding our experimental results. Carroll's comment that "the worlds are not located in space" is helpful but still falls short for me. I understand that it's seen by many to be the most natural solution to the phenomenon of wavefunction collapse. The explanation usually given is:
You go to measure (observe, locate) an electron. Before you measure it, it's not in any definite position. It is really a 'cloud', which we quantify as a wavefunction. Schrodinger invented the equation which describes wavefunctions. When we go to measure the electron (by shining a light on it, or running it through a detector), now we interact with the electron, and somehow this interaction causes the electron to move from a wavefunction cloud of probabilities into taking a definite position in spacetime. This is the "collapse" part of wavefunction collapse. The equation spits out the probabilities for finding the electron at every point in space. When we run the experiment N number of times, we observe that the Schrodinger equation is correct, and the probabilities are amazingly accurate.
The standard Copenhagen interpretation of this result essentially takes the collapse for granted, and says nothing about how or why it happens. Many Worlds comes along and says "Actually there is no collapse, and everytime some particle/system is measured, a multitude of new universes spawn, and in each universe one of the possible measurements is observed".
The entire motivation behind MWI is to address this mysterious collapse by getting rid of it. There is no collapse - when we go to measure/find the electron, we simply find ourselves in a new branch, and in this branch we find the electron where we find it. In other universes, they found it in different locations.
The natural reaction of most of us is to question why a near infinite amount of universes being spawned to cover every possible measurement outcome is a more tidy explanation than figuring out another reason for wavefunction collapse. I think this is where a lack of math is hindering us. What I gather is that there is some deeply abstract intuition that physicists develop by their interaction with the mathematical frameworks of physics which allows them to understand the ontological status of these many worlds without freaking out over their existence, or our inability to make any contact with them.
Copenhagen is no explanation at all, so in that sense MWI is at least an improvement. It offers a solution to the conundrum. But ultimately it feels very extravagant. I still think ontologically, it makes little sense for the universe to split into copies. It feels like we are missing something much more fundamental about how reality works on these scales, and we are falling back on some deeply Platonist ideas about mathematics and metaphysics to invoke a solution in which Hilbert Space is real and not just a conceptual schema.
Yes, you don't understand physics. That's OK, but why make a public confession? ;-)
high iq comment
@@schmetterling4477 I look forward to reading your paper where you prove Many Worlds, and congratulate you in advance on the Nobel Prize that is surely coming
@@Billybo121 I don't do bullshit like MWI. Everett's mistake can be found in the second sentence of hos thesis. Oh, wait... unlike you I actually read it. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 You should teach Ed Witten a thing or two!
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
Great guest and discussions. Thanks!
Why do I always think about Naruto using shadow clones to look and spin both directions to create rasenshuriken
If the universe never existed, then you wouldn't be here to have that thought. So, the thought is irrelevant.
It's like when The Grand Network spied on me, I just knew whenever they spied.
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
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.
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).
Where's Sabine when you need her.
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 absolutely love these two gentlemen!
These guests are very informative compared to your political hacks.
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.
I like when the TH-cam is smarter than me. There should be an application process.
I love the pothead questions.
20:54 DAMN
The question of what is outside is something that has absolutely boggled my mind ever since I was a young child old enough to vaguely comprehend the concept of space and time. Probably 8 or 9 years old. For something to exist there has to be something containing it, always. There cannot be a brick wall at the end. Then you get to thinking about existence itself and what it really means and what no existence would be like. It is such a sad, sad thought to think of existence ceasing. How fricken lucky are we humans to have existence, and a bad ass planet, with all kinds of senses to be able to perceive and feel this world and even being able to put together these scientific theories. Absolutely incredible!
Existence is the default.
@@ThatGuyXX7 one would sure hope so
Existence has always existed, it never began, and it will never end. The universe is infinite and boundless.
Awesome conversation
It drives me crazy how much Lex Is overusing the word “ beautiful “ for everything
I actually stopped watching his videos because of this and I just came back to this video hoping he forgot that habit and Boom right away we head “ beautiful “
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?
The universe cannot just be. It progresses through time. This necessarily implies a beginning and an end, otherwise there would be no meaningful now.
My naive objection to the many-worlds idea is that it seems to violate conservation of energy. At every branching of the possibilities contained in the wave function, new realities are spawned, resulting in a vast multiplication of the universe every micro-second. Just as Carroll says that the space these world take up is inside of them, I suppose he would also say that the mass/energy that makes them up is inside of them, but that doesn't solve the problem. If that mass/energy is massively multiplying every micro-second, that would seem to violate conservation of energy.
MWI is simply a misunderstanding of ordinary quantum mechanics. In the standard formulation the wave function psi describes a quantum mechanical ensemble. An ensemble contains an infinite number of independent repetitions of the same experiment. IF we were to identify the wave function with an actual physical entity, then it, too, would have an infinite amount of energy. We simply don't. The wave function is an abstract mathematical description that does not have a physical realization. Everett did not understand this and that's why he ended up creating this infinitely heavy monster.
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?
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.
‘ what to you is most beautiful” ……..’ funding”. 😂
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.
The reason there's no answer just re-enforces the simulation theory. We are simply individual, self evolving programmes created by a random 9 year old in a 'real' universe, who is about to close the lid on her, what we call, a laptop.
But Elliot loves multiflag!
At a few points you can see Sean think "is this guy stupid?"
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.
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
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
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.
The wave function is not baggage. It's a useful tool to calculate the behavior of quantum mechanical ensembles. And that is all it is. It's an abstract tool. It's not reality.
lex should have asked Sean about the ether.
It's absurd that lex doesn't have more views and subscribers.
Get Terrance Howard on here!
I thought schrodinger equation breaks down on heavier atoms due to relativity and hence dirac equation provides and takes into account of relativity with a more accurate near result taking speed of light into account😮
Sean: can you describe an experiment that could reveal that many worlds is correct?
No, he can not. ;-)