Well, the burden of proof doesn’t lie with Carroll. Instead, the entire point is that the non-materialist has the burden of evidence

How does the burden lie with the reader, rather than the author who has explicitly stated they are assuming physicalism. Why must we assume physicalism?

every time you ask about the possibility of non-materialism, I can ask you for the corresponding experiment which opens that possibility

You're welcome to ask, but not all truths are experimentally verifiable. I read Newton's flaming laser sword to mean that only science or logic can reveal truths, which isn't at all the case.

I've enjoyed discussing this with you - you've been clear, and added some interesting references. I'm not sure this medium really lends itself to in-depth discussion. I think we both need more space to understand where the other is coming from, and I don't see us progressing in that direction.