Copenhegen interpretation or Many World Interpretation?

[bhobba]

In principle... probably, yes. Every interpretation of a model has implications along with it, and it is just a matter of time before someone clever enough comes along and sees a way to measure the reality of one set of implications verse another.

That's not true.

Many interpretations have been deliberately cooked up so its impossible to tell the difference between it and the formalism.

In fact most (but not all) interpretations is simply an argument about the meaning of probability.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bayes.html

Thanks
Bill

 

[bhobba]

Right, so, just to emphasize: what you're calling Copenhagen is known in philosophy of science as instrumentalism, and in the context of QM is generally called shut-up-and-calculate. .

Yes and no. It is part of a group of interpretations that has observations as its primitive (philosophers likely would call it instrumentalist - although I wouldn't because it goes well beyond instruments in actual experiments) that differ purely in how the interpret probability. I would classify all those in the shut-up and calculate group.

Thanks
Bill