Thanks, that's exactly what I wanted to know.
I'm completely satisfied with the "shut up and calculate" approach. For me, until somebody shows that he/she can calculate (that is, predict) more than what physicists achieve, they are the ones the closest to "the truth" and not the "interpreter."
The issue here is subtle, and it's that the most popular interpretation, Copenhagen, isn't a complete theory because it doesn't tell you algorithmically when collapse occurs. For any possible algorithmic way to handle collapse, there's a corresponding experiment that could (at least in theory) differentiate between Copenhagen and Many Worlds. But the Copenhagen is inordinately slippery in that collapse is defined to occur ex post facto in whatever way is needed to make the experimental results match the theoretical results.
It's perhaps not so surprising that this shortcoming was overlooked in the beginning because Copenhagen was hypothesized before we really had a clear handle on the study of algorithms. But the fact that Copenhagen is still as popular as it is means that Yudkowski needs to spend a lot of time on philosophy of science, because that's what's holding back most people from seeing the problems with Copenhagen, and why at first glance it looks like philosophy.
Text books ought to be rewritten to teach decoherence instead of outdated stuff like wave-particle duality, wavefunction collapse and such. That is the history of the development of QM and not QM as it is known today, in my limited knowledge.
If you get decoherence, much of the "mysteriousness" and "spookiness" that's talked about in such magazines just disappears and you find them all, every one of them, shallow.
The major thing missing from the article for me is that she didn't mention that the co-author of the most recent paper on the topic is much more known as the security researcher than as somebody who does anything related to quantum physics:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4356
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_J._Anderson
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/
He's author of (to me) very useful book "Security Engineering":
If I understand you, we can expect that somebody is maybe going to be the first to discover something new thanks to the way he's used to think about the subject. Still, before that happens, what do we have?
Edit: Only real hard science. The discoverer we expect of course must decide from which side to attack the matter to reach the new discoveries.
The reason I don't know how to answer your question is that I interpret it to mean: what tangible result do we have before we have our first tangible result?
Of course, if that's not what you mean, then please clarify. You may want to read his book, though, as this concept is central to some of it. If you're saying, "what is the effect of such paradigms before they change," then it's best to read his book. One point he makes is that everyone operates under a paradigm, whether conscious of it or not. That is, we must think about our scientific work in some way, and whatever way we think about it will influence what scientific work we do. It is generally the case, though, that many people have some form of agreement on that "some way." When we do, that sets informal bounds on what is "acceptable science."
He does use quantum mechanics as an example, but that's loaded because we're still hashing it out. Another example he uses is phlogiston chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory), which has thoroughly been supplanted. Those who first encountered oxygen were unable to recognize what it was because the paradigm in which they operated didn't contain the concept.
