Input 1: authors check out (PRL, Nature pubs). Not a one-off crazy posting to arXiv.
Input 2: Unless this your field, I'd be surprised if you get much from the paper other than interpretation of quantum mechanics is still an active field and information theory / thermodynamics has an important role in that field.
Input 3: After a few reads, I don't like the phrasing the authors put on Type-II interpretations. They say "Another class sees quantum probabilities as not directly dealing with intrinsic properties of the world but with relational experiences between an observer and the world." Another way to say it may be that it's impossible to separate observation from the intrinsic properties of the world. That is, reality is tightly bound up with observation and trying to separate the two is artificial. But I'd be happy to hear what others think about it.
Input 1: authors check out (PRL, Nature pubs). Not a one-off crazy posting to arXiv.
Input 2: Unless this your field, I'd be surprised if you get much from the paper other than interpretation of quantum mechanics is still an active field and information theory / thermodynamics has an important role in that field.
Input 3: After a few reads, I don't like the phrasing the authors put on Type-II interpretations. They say "Another class sees quantum probabilities as not directly dealing with intrinsic properties of the world but with relational experiences between an observer and the world." Another way to say it may be that it's impossible to separate observation from the intrinsic properties of the world. That is, reality is tightly bound up with observation and trying to separate the two is artificial. But I'd be happy to hear what others think about it.