While he left significant room in precisely how one might interpret the theory, the core of Everett's interpretation involved four closely related arguments.
By regarding the coordinate as a gauge variable (see gauge theory), he was able to interpret the theory as one involving four-dimensional space-time.
Russell aimed to confirm a theory of stellar evolution suggested by the astronomical spectroscopist Joseph Norman Lockyer and the mathematical physicist August Ritter, and to interpret the theory in terms of the gas laws.
Bimal K. Matilal interpreted the theory in this fashion (see Matilal 1971, 41), as did Hans Herzberger.
Bradwardine interprets the theory in a way that commits it to transcasus as well, although Scotus's own text does not seem committed to that.
Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics.
If we interpret the theory as postulating actual distant action, say between the moon and the earth, then it clearly must be mistaken; but even if we interpret it less strongly, as merely postulating that distant action between the moon and the earth is possible, that would presumably disqualify the theory as well.
One can alternatively embrace the charge that EU theory is maximally permissive and interpret the theory not as a standard against which an agent may pass or fail, but rather as an organising principle that enables the identification and measurement of an agent's fundamental preference attitudes, namely her beliefs and desires (see esp. Guala 2008).
Clarke's view raises a serious problem for Newtonians: if action at a distance is simply a contradiction, and therefore not a possible physical situation, even with divine intervention, then how ought one to interpret the theory of universal gravity, which certainly appears to indicate that distant action is perfectly possible, and perhaps even actual?
From her point of view, this Newtonian conception of body is not inherently problematic; the problem arises when some Newtonians interpret the theory of universal gravity as proving that bodies have a property of attraction or attractive power endowed by God (Châtelet 1742: ch. 16, §385).
