Sean Carroll

from the manifest image by saying that things like space and locations and particles bumping into each other and stuff like that, none of that is part of the fundamental description.

And so you're making it even more work to connect the underlying theory to the world we see around us.

To me, that's just a challenge that sounds fun.

Let's take it up and let's push it forward.

To others, it's like, I'm too skeptical that's ever going to work, so I don't want to go down there.

I get that, but I want to see what we can do.

So I have called this the problem of structure in Everettian quantum mechanics.

I realize belatedly that's probably not the best phrase to use.

Simon Saunders and others have used the same label, the problem of structure.

to talk about the problem of branching, right?

Like when do things branch?

Where are the branches located?

How many branches are there?

That is not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about in each branch.

Why do things look like stuff arranged in space?

Why do we get the particular manifest image that we get and how?

Is it uniquely defined?

Is it just a choice that we make?

I mean, we would like if even if, you know, objects and locations in space of objects are not fundamental, we would at least like to think that not only are they emergent, but there's kind of a uniquely right way to see them emerge.