Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 18, 2020, 06:12:21 PM
-
The interview doesn't make me want to read the book as it reads too much about what he 'feels' is correct.
https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/?fbclid=IwAR1-QO2BI6OQ35POMKnn4WHjNo_6qHnN7hDC3Tr9N5w1SafpXZTRjFL4EQg
-
The interview doesn't make me want to read the book as it reads too much about what he 'feels' is correct.
https://www.wired.com/story/sean-carroll-thinks-we-all-exist-on-multiple-worlds/?fbclid=IwAR1-QO2BI6OQ35POMKnn4WHjNo_6qHnN7hDC3Tr9N5w1SafpXZTRjFL4EQg
I listened to that; interesting of course, but I hope Sean Carroll is not going to veer off into the realm of scientists appealing to the woo audiences. Trouble is that, even if he keeps both beet firmlly on the ground, there are readers who will promote the book as just that sort of revisionist thinking. That would be a pity.
-
I listened to that; interesting of course, but I hope Sean Carroll is not going to veer off into the realm of scientists appealing to the woo audiences. Trouble is that, even if he keeps both beet firmlly on the ground, there are readers who will promote the book as just that sort of revisionist thinking. That would be a pity.
I think it's more around his previous comments that some of physics was getting beyond falsifiability. I've always felt that that idea causes problems for its relevance. Obviously speculation is fine and indeed necessary but if it never progresses beyond that then we are on angels dancing on pinheads territory.
I think the article overemphasised the Many Worlds hypothesis's underdog status. It's not as obscure as is stated, rather its hypnotic quality leads to much speculation.
-
I think the article overemphasised the Many Worlds hypothesis's underdog status. It's not as obscure as is stated...
It certainly isn't. What I wasn't sure of is if he had anything new to say about it. There was nothing in the article to suggest that he did.
The unfalsifiability problem is common to discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics because they generally are just that, interpretations, so they don't make any predictions that go beyond the standard theory. As far as I know, the only person who is trying to make predictions and do experiments in this area is Penrose who proposes that wave function 'collapse' is a real physical phenomenon that is related to gravity. His view really is a small minority one, though.
-
It certainly isn't. What I wasn't sure of is if he had anything new to say about it. There was nothing in the article to suggest that he did.
The unfalsifiability problem is common to discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics because they generally are just that, interpretations, so they don't make any predictions that go beyond the standard theory. As far as I know, the only person who is trying to make predictions and do experiments in this area is Penrose who proposes that wave function 'collapse' is a real physical phenomenon that is related to gravity. His view really is a small minority one, though.
This is surely part of Carroll's problem. In the absence of any experimental approach to it, all we are getting is his feels. The book, from the interview, reads as if its going to be The Secret Many Worlds Diary of Sean Carroll, Aged 54 and a Third. I am sure there will be good bits in it as he's an excellent communicator but it feels as if it's a book for the sake of publishing rather than one that has substance.
In the larger sense, unfalsifiability presents a challenge for any area of science in which it appears since as you note what you end up with is discussion of interpretations rather than anyone 'doing science'.
-
I think it's more around his previous comments that some of physics was getting beyond falsifiability. I've always felt that that idea causes problems for its relevance. Obviously speculation is fine and indeed necessary but if it never progresses beyond that then we are ion angels dancing on pinheads territory.
I think the article overemphasised the Many Worlds hypothesis's underdog status. It's not as obscure as is stated, rather its hypnotic quality leads to much speculation.
Perhaps it is a case of commentators forgetting that the scientific method always has a margin, however minimal, for
change, improvement, etc.
-
Very interesting & a wonderful idea.