(There are two different argument sets here: 1) against random collapse, and 2) for MWI specifically. It’s important to keep these distinct.)
Unless I’m missing something, EY argues that evidence against random collapse is evidence for MWI. See that long analogy on Maxwell’s equations with angels mediating the electromagnetic force.
It’s also evidence for a bunch of other interpretations though, right? I meant “for MWI specifically”; I’ll edit my comment to be clearer.
I agree, which is one of the reasons why I feel 1) alone isn’t enough to substantiate “There is no rational controversy to teach” and etc.
(There are two different argument sets here: 1) against random collapse, and 2) for MWI specifically. It’s important to keep these distinct.)
Unless I’m missing something, EY argues that evidence against random collapse is evidence for MWI. See that long analogy on Maxwell’s equations with angels mediating the electromagnetic force.
It’s also evidence for a bunch of other interpretations though, right? I meant “for MWI specifically”; I’ll edit my comment to be clearer.
I agree, which is one of the reasons why I feel 1) alone isn’t enough to substantiate “There is no rational controversy to teach” and etc.