Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011

2013-01-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? It's the view most advocated by Asher and Fuchs, that the WF is just an encoding of

Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011

2013-01-25 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Friday, January 25, 2013 6:44:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at 21:49, meekerdb wrote: On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? It's the view

Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011

2013-01-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Jan 2013, at 04:03, Gary Oberbrunner wrote: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069v1.pdf See question 12. Interesting. Thanks. A bit sad, also. If it takes time to understand the MWI of the SWE (which writes it almost explicitly), I guess it will take time to understand the universal

Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011

2013-01-24 Thread Jason Resch
Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? The informational and MW together got 42% of the vote, equal to Copenhagen. Jason On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 24 Jan 2013, at

Re: [foar] 18% of (certain) scientists (still) support MWI as of 2011

2013-01-24 Thread meekerdb
On 1/24/2013 12:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Bruno, What is meant by the informational interpretations? Is that something like the one Ron Garrett presented? It's the view most advocated by Asher and Fuchs, that the WF is just an encoding of what the experimenter knows about the physical