[ExI] QT and SR

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
> if one merely adopts the theory which every year gains more
> adherents, namely the 1957 Relative State formulation of Hugh
> Everett, commonly called MWI.

So why did the Copenhagen interpretation stand in the way for so long?

It interesting to me that you should state this so emphatically; my
initial reaction was that to push MWI aside was the wrong choice.  I
learned of this decision when I was still in the "knows everything"
age.  Then I went through periods of "knows nothing" and "doesn't
really care either way" - and now feel confident to say I know some
things, but doubt anybody else cares to hear about them.  :)