Hmm he seems to imply that MWI is the "right" interpretation, and that the measurement problem is solved. Most physicists would not agree. If you follow the link to his MWI description, there's this gem:
> But fortunately, I knew computer science, which most physicists do not know, with the Church-Turing thesis, which roughly states that anything physical can be simulated by a computer.
But that is not what the Church-Turing thesis says. A Turing machine cannot mimic a truly random physical process, pretty much by definition.
And then:
> This means that observers can be simulated by a computer.
Except that nobody really understands what kinds of physical interactions qualify as measurements -- or even if that is the right framework to use at all.
> But fortunately, I knew computer science, which most physicists do not know, with the Church-Turing thesis, which roughly states that anything physical can be simulated by a computer.
But that is not what the Church-Turing thesis says. A Turing machine cannot mimic a truly random physical process, pretty much by definition.
And then:
> This means that observers can be simulated by a computer.
Except that nobody really understands what kinds of physical interactions qualify as measurements -- or even if that is the right framework to use at all.