2 ms·

I listen to his podcast, and I’m definitely partial to the many worlds interpretation, so I end up taking in a lot of his explanations of it. The work he’s doi

I listen to his podcast, and I’m definitely partial to the many worlds interpretation, so I end up taking in a lot of his explanations of it. The work he’s doing in that area is super interesting, and sounds promising (of course, I’m getting primarily Carroll’s take on it when I hear about it, so it makes sense that it sounds promising!), but the math itself is above my head. I am super interested to see if it ends up moving the ball forward on resolving the GR/QM conflicts.

Vecr 3y ago
I personally don't think it will but I guess it could, it's as good a model to start from as any. That's kind of the problem though, it's not actually better than the modern version of the Copenhagen interpretation unless you think wave function collapse is a physical event that's caused by (something in) your brain. If you think that, Copenhagen's obviously not correct, as your brain can't cause anything that it itself wasn't caused to do, because free will does not exist. If you think of wave function collapse as not a physical event and not caused by anything (except by the physics of the universe following the original state of the universe, if you don't like the idea of a block universe in configuration space), it's totally fine and is equivalent to Multiple Worlds. Don't think of the Multiple Worlds as things that physically exist either though.