At 02:02 PM 3/30/99 +0100, Bryan Moss wrote:
>(The reason I asked the original question was because I had been given the
>impression that MWI gave a better explanation of the observer problem than
>other interpretations. Clearly it does not.)
I really have to disagree here. MWI DOES give a better explanation of the existence of randomness: it demonstrates that what appears random isn't, and explains why it would appear random anyway. What more would we want from such an answer?
-IF THE END DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS- -THEN WHAT DOES-