## Tuesday, September 03, 2019 ... //

### Aesop, Everett, Carroll, and a herbivorous fox

Unsurprisingly for me, Nature has been hired as a P.R. agency to promote Sean Carroll's new book fighting against quantum mechanics:

The bizarre logic of the many-worlds theory:

Robert P. Crease enjoys Sean Carroll’s foray into a 60-year-old theory
I've dedicated many essays to the Many Worlds Interpretation and why it's incorrect. Most recently, it was the R2 in this critique of the revisionism of three types.

Instead, I want to discuss some sociological and psychological issues of power and arrogance. We learn from Robert Crease, the writer in Nature, that Carroll's book begins with a fable by Aesop about a fox who wants some grapes but it seems hard to reach the branches, so the fox – refusing to admit failure – declares the grapes to be inedible. (This fable is why the English speakers say "sour grapes".)

According to Carroll, the fox is the physicists and the grapes are quantum mechanics. He wants to say that physicists are refusing to admit failure of quantum mechanics! Wow, indeed, physicists are refusing to do so because there doesn't exist the slightest glimpse of a failure of quantum mechanics. A failure would occur if quantum mechanics were contradicted by an experiment; or had an internal inconsistency; or at least had some very unlikely features that could be labeled unnatural. But none of these three conditions holds.

Incidentally, Carroll is not only wrong in almost 100% comments he makes about the foundations of physics. Along with Aesop, he is even wrong in criticizing the fox. The fox has wisely declared the grapes to be inedible because grapes are poisonous for foxes, especially in large quantities.

It's apparently another politically incorrect scientific secret but foxes actually eat meat – and even if you tell them that meat is killing the planet because a retarded teenage bastard with Asperger's says so and Al Gore has prepared a disappointing would-be replacement for meat, in his efforts to get even wealthier by another wave of a fraudulent manipulation with the public using irrational fear, foxes will remain clever as foxes and unlike the German or other Gr$tinist humans, they will keep on eating meat. Note that even Gore's surname is fraudulent – because his fake meat has no blood and gore. (News: Bavarian ministers who fail to be gr$tinist will be jailed, no kidding.)

Did RonRon get some grapes for the Thanksgiving? Or was it turkey, especially turkey's skin? Sean and other schoolkids may guess before they watch this educational video.

If you are a fox and you see grapes, you should avoid them. They may be sour grapes but more seriously, they are toxic for you! Similarly, if you are a physicist and someone tries to push the Many Worlds Interpretation or similar stuff down your throat, be careful because those things are toxic, too.

Incidentally, the fox's correct conclusion that the grapes wouldn't be too great nutritionally may be argued to be more than just a lucky guess. There exists a rational thought that justifies the conclusion. Foxes generally don't have the right tools and patience needed to climb the trees or bushes and/or collect the grapes from them. If those were an important part of the foxes' diet, the foxes as a species would have already starved to death and gone extinct. So the grapes had to be sour and the fox was cleverer than Aesop and Carroll and combined. There indeed exists a positive correlation between "the difficulty needed to get something" and its "inedibility".

This was my fable about How a fox (with a help from Lumo) outfoxed Aesop and Carroll. Note that a similar conclusion applies to the Many Worlds Interpretation as well. If it were any useful for the physics research, physicists would have already switched to that paradigm in the recent 50 years, wouldn't they? You know, it would be so straightforward to do so. Don't you think that physicists must have some good reasons why the Many Worlds Interpretation hasn't filled journals in particle physics or condensed matter physics etc.?

Carroll's anti-quantum comments and the implicit denial that foxes are carnivores could be labeled just two examples of his extremely limited scientific literacy. But it's the following paragraph that truly raises our adrenaline level:
Carroll wants that to stop. The fox can reach the grapes, he argues, with the many-worlds theory.
Carroll wants what to stop? Does he want to prevent other physicists from avoiding the Many Worlds Interpretation and calling it a toxic or meaningless superstructure that has nothing whatever to do with the correct scientific explanations of any phenomena? Has he written a book and ordered sycophants in Nature to guarantee that the other physicists will be forbidden from having their own opinions about the validity and value of orthodox quantum mechanics and/or its proposed alternatives?

Does he want to stop the freedom of speech and basic academic freedoms of the physicists?

Where did you collect such a staggering amount of arrogance, Mr Carroll? Physicists don't assume the Many Worlds Interpretation in their research papers because this fake theory doesn't work at the level of physics – it seems inconsistent with the rules that actually work. An easy way to put the difference is that all of physics is about the calculation of probabilities while the Many Worlds Interpretation cannot say anything coherent about probabilities at all – so they just don't have anything to do with each other. And even if some version of the Many Worlds Interpretation were consistent, it would only bring useless complexities relatively to the postulates and methods that actually work and that are used. Those that say that the fundamental laws directly predict probabilities, they cannot predict anything else, and that's how things are and have to be.

Your understanding why proper quantum mechanics – as articulated in Copenhagen and perhaps Göttingen (this city primarily means "Max Born") – is scientifically superior in comparison with the Many Worlds Interpretation is dramatically weaker than the understanding of this fact by other physicists. And this difference has rather simple reasons, too. You're simply not as good a physicist as others. It's terrible if you try to beat these lethal vices of yours by writing pathetic popular books and using scientifically illiterate laymen as a weapon against physics and physicists who are much better than you are. Why? Because it's the arguments that should matter in science – arguments showing that theories actually work – and you don't have any such arguments whatsoever. You only have tons of morons whom you have manipulated.

The quantum revolution is the most important scientific breakthrough of the 20th century – and maybe in several centuries. It has primarily taught us that the fundamentally calculable quantities aren't numbers describing "how reality is" but rather "probabilities that the measurements end with one outcome or another". And these probabilities are calculated from squared absolute values of complex numbers in a theory heavily dependent on linear algebra. So the wave function isn't a real object and it isn't universal. It is a set of complex numbers generalizing a particular knowledge set of probability distributions that may be used to predict the future measurements. To deny this paradigm shift and/or its importance is exactly as scientifically illiterate as the denial of heliocentrism 94 years after Copernicus' texts (i.e. in 1637) or the denial of evolution 94 years after the publication of Darwin's famous book (i.e. in 1953). We are fudging 94 years after the birth of quantum mechanics and it's finally time to use the phrase "brain-dead medieval bigots" for those who still deny its basic findings.

And that's the memo.

P.S. for all the spineless physicists who know better but who encourage the likes of Carroll to bastardize science by their utter passivity: you are a part of the problem.

#### snail feedback (0) :

(function(i,s,o,g,r,a,m){i['GoogleAnalyticsObject']=r;i[r]=i[r]||function(){ (i[r].q=i[r].q||[]).push(arguments)},i[r].l=1*new Date();a=s.createElement(o), m=s.getElementsByTagName(o)[0];a.async=1;a.src=g;m.parentNode.insertBefore(a,m) })(window,document,'script','//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js','ga'); ga('create', 'UA-1828728-1', 'auto'); ga('send', 'pageview');