Sean Carroll

That's very true, and it's something I'm actually very interested in and not completely clear about in my own brain, how to deal with these things that you think are very, very unlikely but hugely consequential if they happen.

That's very true, and it's something I'm actually very interested in and not completely clear about in my own brain, how to deal with these things that you think are very, very unlikely but hugely consequential if they happen.

One of the aspects to keep in mind is lots of things, other than setting off a nuclear test, have the property that they could, in principle, cause some tremendous calamity to happen, and you don't know what the probability is, okay? When I wrote my book on the Higgs boson, the particle at the end of the universe, that was a worry, right?

One of the aspects to keep in mind is lots of things, other than setting off a nuclear test, have the property that they could, in principle, cause some tremendous calamity to happen, and you don't know what the probability is, okay? When I wrote my book on the Higgs boson, the particle at the end of the universe, that was a worry, right?

The worry was that by turning on the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, we would destroy the Earth eventually. And I said, look, every time you open a jar of spaghetti sauce, pasta sauce, there is a possibility that some random mutation brought to life a terrible mutated pathogen that you are now releasing into the world and will kill all life on Earth by opening that jar of pasta sauce. Unlikely.

The worry was that by turning on the LHC, the Large Hadron Collider, we would destroy the Earth eventually. And I said, look, every time you open a jar of spaghetti sauce, pasta sauce, there is a possibility that some random mutation brought to life a terrible mutated pathogen that you are now releasing into the world and will kill all life on Earth by opening that jar of pasta sauce. Unlikely.

But it's possible, and what you're doing is you're risking all of human existence by opening that jar. Is this an argument to not do it? And I think that the answer is no. It is not an argument to not do it. Lots of things are possible, but we still have to get through the day.

But it's possible, and what you're doing is you're risking all of human existence by opening that jar. Is this an argument to not do it? And I think that the answer is no. It is not an argument to not do it. Lots of things are possible, but we still have to get through the day.

That's not a very well-formulated, rigorous philosophical theory of getting through the day, but getting through the day is actually kind of important. So I think that I would like to actually understand that better. Paul Hess says, in the many worlds interpretation, what happens when I use a quantum computer?

That's not a very well-formulated, rigorous philosophical theory of getting through the day, but getting through the day is actually kind of important. So I think that I would like to actually understand that better. Paul Hess says, in the many worlds interpretation, what happens when I use a quantum computer?

Is there one world where I get the right answer and some other number of worlds where I instead get errors? Is the thickness of the world where I get the right answer a function of how carefully I isolate the qubits? Well, you know, as I said this before, there's not a lot of difference between what happens in a quantum computer in many worlds and any other interpretation.

Is there one world where I get the right answer and some other number of worlds where I instead get errors? Is the thickness of the world where I get the right answer a function of how carefully I isolate the qubits? Well, you know, as I said this before, there's not a lot of difference between what happens in a quantum computer in many worlds and any other interpretation.

The success of quantum computers does—so I think that it's possible in my mind, although I don't know for sure, that there could be a principal argument made that quantum computing is an argument in favor of wave function realism. OK, the idea that the wave function really has a physical reality to it because it's becoming entangled, it's interfering, blah, blah, blah.

The success of quantum computers does—so I think that it's possible in my mind, although I don't know for sure, that there could be a principal argument made that quantum computing is an argument in favor of wave function realism. OK, the idea that the wave function really has a physical reality to it because it's becoming entangled, it's interfering, blah, blah, blah.

All these things are happening. Now, the people who are not wave function realists find this entirely unpersuasive. In fact, many people who are not wave function realists, epistemic people when it comes to the foundations of quantum mechanics, actually are in the field of quantum information. So I don't understand how they reconcile that.

All these things are happening. Now, the people who are not wave function realists find this entirely unpersuasive. In fact, many people who are not wave function realists, epistemic people when it comes to the foundations of quantum mechanics, actually are in the field of quantum information. So I don't understand how they reconcile that.

But putting that aside, if you think that you are a wave function realist, there's nothing in the quantum computer that differentiates Everett from Bohm, from GRW, objective collapse models, Penrose, whatever, right? That's the same kind of predictions you go along the way. The only difference is, and maybe this is what you have in mind, when you do the final measurement,

But putting that aside, if you think that you are a wave function realist, there's nothing in the quantum computer that differentiates Everett from Bohm, from GRW, objective collapse models, Penrose, whatever, right? That's the same kind of predictions you go along the way. The only difference is, and maybe this is what you have in mind, when you do the final measurement,

in a quantum computer because a quantum computation generally starts by putting in some qubits into the algorithm and running it through the algorithm and you get out some qubits and then you measure them, okay? So there's a measurement process and the measurement process is governed by the Born rule. The probability of getting an outcome is the wave function squared.

in a quantum computer because a quantum computation generally starts by putting in some qubits into the algorithm and running it through the algorithm and you get out some qubits and then you measure them, okay? So there's a measurement process and the measurement process is governed by the Born rule. The probability of getting an outcome is the wave function squared.