Sean Carroll

So if you talk to either Bohmians or Everettians, who are more or less made up their minds, and you ask them the reason why they don't like the other one, it's typically because they don't think the other one does the job of being a well-defined theory that fits the data. and of course they think that theirs does.

So anyway, none of this is specifically about electrons and orbitals and in molecules and so forth, but just to say that I can imagine something like that being true. So I've not read the paper, but I can imagine that in a theory like GRW, which is one where there's a random chance that the wave function of a particle will spontaneously localize every moment or whatever,

So anyway, none of this is specifically about electrons and orbitals and in molecules and so forth, but just to say that I can imagine something like that being true. So I've not read the paper, but I can imagine that in a theory like GRW, which is one where there's a random chance that the wave function of a particle will spontaneously localize every moment or whatever,

you could show that something, some feature of chemistry or solid state materials physics or something like that just doesn't work under these models. So I'm all in favor of doing that. It would be very, very hard to distinguish between Bohm and Everett on that account because Bohm and Everett have the same equation for the wave function. The wave function is just obeying the Schrodinger equation.

you could show that something, some feature of chemistry or solid state materials physics or something like that just doesn't work under these models. So I'm all in favor of doing that. It would be very, very hard to distinguish between Bohm and Everett on that account because Bohm and Everett have the same equation for the wave function. The wave function is just obeying the Schrodinger equation.

But I still am holding out hope for some subtle difference that will let us test these ideas experimentally. Will says, I have moments when the suffering and unfairness of the world feels just too much to bear.

But I still am holding out hope for some subtle difference that will let us test these ideas experimentally. Will says, I have moments when the suffering and unfairness of the world feels just too much to bear.

When one sees children killed by bombs or suffering from horrible incurable diseases or learns about life in crushing dictatorships or poverty, one yearns for some cosmic justice that those who suffered will be made whole one day and that all the suffering wasn't just a hideous waste. These are the moments when I would be most inclined to religion, probably as a form of wishful thinking.

When one sees children killed by bombs or suffering from horrible incurable diseases or learns about life in crushing dictatorships or poverty, one yearns for some cosmic justice that those who suffered will be made whole one day and that all the suffering wasn't just a hideous waste. These are the moments when I would be most inclined to religion, probably as a form of wishful thinking.

When you have these moments, what do you turn to? Are there philosophers or ideas that you find helpful in this regard? Not specifically philosophers or ideas. I do think that just truly taking on the philosophy of

When you have these moments, what do you turn to? Are there philosophers or ideas that you find helpful in this regard? Not specifically philosophers or ideas. I do think that just truly taking on the philosophy of

of naturalism, of, you know, the world is not guided by any external forces, it just obeys the laws of physics, and appreciating that those laws of physics and the initial conditions or whatever include an enormous amount of information that we don't have access to, and therefore there will be things happen that we don't like and can't predict and can't do anything about, I think it is possible just to accommodate oneself to those true facts about the universe.

of naturalism, of, you know, the world is not guided by any external forces, it just obeys the laws of physics, and appreciating that those laws of physics and the initial conditions or whatever include an enormous amount of information that we don't have access to, and therefore there will be things happen that we don't like and can't predict and can't do anything about, I think it is possible just to accommodate oneself to those true facts about the universe.

We're all going to die. Probably life itself will someday cease. I have plans for the future, some of which will turn out and some of which will not. I've had plans in the past that did not turn out. It doesn't make it any easier in the moment. You know, when a close friend of yours is sick or passes away, that doesn't make it any less tragic and hurtful when that happens. But

We're all going to die. Probably life itself will someday cease. I have plans for the future, some of which will turn out and some of which will not. I've had plans in the past that did not turn out. It doesn't make it any easier in the moment. You know, when a close friend of yours is sick or passes away, that doesn't make it any less tragic and hurtful when that happens. But

But the fact that things like that will happen are things that you can come to grips with long before they actually do. And I don't think it's a matter of like this philosopher or this idea really helps you with that.

But the fact that things like that will happen are things that you can come to grips with long before they actually do. And I don't think it's a matter of like this philosopher or this idea really helps you with that.

I think that there's some combination of that understanding of the world and the kind of psychological accommodation or orientation that lets you approach that with clear eyes and do the best we can, accepting that they will make us sad when they happen. Robert Ruxendrescu says, we usually talk about electrons having their spins entangled, but why not positions?

I think that there's some combination of that understanding of the world and the kind of psychological accommodation or orientation that lets you approach that with clear eyes and do the best we can, accepting that they will make us sad when they happen. Robert Ruxendrescu says, we usually talk about electrons having their spins entangled, but why not positions?

Why can't we have electrons A and B entangled such that if I measure A and find it at coordinates one, two, three, then I immediately know that B is at coordinates minus one, minus two, minus three. You can. Sure. No problem at all. In fact, that's a very, very common form of entanglement. We don't even talk about it that much because it's just so common.