Reddit reviews What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics

> Perhaps, but I'm also obstinately Popperian... falsifiability and predictive power are really important parts of any theoretical framework.

The rough consensus in philosophy of science is certainly not against "falsifiability and predictive power". Far from it. However there are quite a few grave problems with the kind of naive normative Popperianism seemingly espoused by the likes of Woit. Like any subject matter, closer examination tends to reveal complexities and nuance. For example, a standard criticism of Popperianism is that what counts as an ad hoc rationalization or any other dispute regarding falsifiability, is not so easily arbitrated, and the process of that arbitration, when examined closely, reveals in reality a process of demarcation that is not in fact Popperian at all, but rather follows the careful application of reason and arbitration of good and bad arguments.

Astrology is a standard example: it is falsifiable, so is it scientific? Well, we ordinarily so "no," because it has been falsified. But according to whom has it been falsified? Certainly not according to the astrologers. In order to arbitrate this disagreement we cannot simply point to astrology failing to be falsifiable, but must roll up our sleeves and engage in reason. And this is not so much a contrived example: an incredible number of scientific "disputes", ranging from anti-vaccers, to flat-earthers, to climate skeptics, to string theory skeptics, all take the same form as the above. For example is climate science pseudoscience? Well, it's one thing to confidently assert it is engaged in ad hoc rationalizations, but it is another thing to argue persuasively that it is. The application of Popperian falsifiability is not so simple. In the case of Woit, he confidently asserts that String theory is unfalsifiable, he confidently asserts it engages in ad hoc rationalizations. As though his opinion on the matter were enough to do the job of demarcation. He doesn't actually roll up his sleeves and engage in any accountable or serious way in either string theory physics nor philosophy of physics.

> For example, despite liking Dr. Carroll's viewpoint and attitude on many subjects, I find Many-Worlds somewhat lacking in the whole falsifiability department.

It shouldn't be surprising that Many-Worlds is lacking in the falsifiability department (well, like string theory it is technically falsifiable, but unlikely in practice), but this shouldn't count against it in the sense that it is not advocated for by anyone as being anything other than a philosophical ontology. It would be like criticizing a chef for being unfalsifiable.

That said, this is another example where I think closer examination reveals a much more complicated story. While physical ontologies are technically philosophy, in practice most physicists engage deeply in ontology, and value ontological conceptual understanding very highly in physics pedagogy. Essentially adopting a coherent ontology that allows one to solve problems without memorizing is what we mean when we desire that a student "understand" some material, as opposed to trying to exhaustively memorize the application of equations. Quantum mechanics puts a lens on this little "secret", because the ontology just happens to be in dispute. But an ontology of quantum mechanics, just like anything else (such as the many ontologies we tend to take for granted such as that atoms exist) would be based on physical evidence, and the evidence (arguably) pretty strongly supports Many-Worlds, just as the evidence (arguably) pretty strongly supports an atomic ontology. Historically this only became an issue because Bohr and Heisenberg were antirealists, but the modern take in philosophy of physics is that the jump to antirealism is unnecessary and a bit extreme. Here is a recent fascinating book that goes into detail about this, which I strongly recommend. I don't know how much you know about quantum mechanics, but keep in mind that, like in most cases where something that seems really stupid is believed by many experts, Many Worlds is much more mundane and a straightforward and parsimonious account of physical facts, than you may have been led to believe by your encounters with it in the popular sphere.

> If Woit has distorted and/or underplayed significant achievements of string or M-theory, I'm all ears. Enlighten me a little, and I promise you I'll do more due dilligence on my own.

Maybe try reading this post I made at (as it happens) sean carroll's reddit page, and then I'm happy to follow-up with any questions you have.

I don't see how it's bunk? It explains the double slit experiment perfectly well and doesn't go deeper than that. Matter can be both a particle and a wave. It begins as a 'wave function' of probability. The particles location within the wave just isn't destined until it is measured/observed through an experiment. The measuring of such a wave forces it to collapse into a single location of matter. I will say that this is not an "Observation" in the traditional sense that it needs a living being to observe it (the giant eye in the video is misrepresented). It's all about the measuring of the wave through Mathematics.

It's still unknown why this occurs and is coined the 'Measurement problem'. The best explanation is that it supports the many world's theory of reality, in which all outcomes occur and we are but one of an infinite amount of outcomes.
I am no expert but it's insanely interesting stuff, I encourage people to look up the Quantum Wave Function on YouTube or grab a decent book outlining Quantum Mechanics.

Edit a few good options:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Picture-Origins-Meaning-Universe/dp/1101984252

https://www.amazon.com/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Quantum/dp/0465096050

https://youtu.be/OFwskHrtYQ4

https://youtu.be/p7bzE1E5PMY

you'll appreciate this, coming out in a few months. written by a friend

https://www.amazon.com/What-Real-Unfinished-Meaning-Physics/dp/0465096050

Except yes it is