betting not because I think its right, but because of the current belief proportions among physicists are those which wikipedia would be most likely to defer to.

Mods, this market seems like, weirdly unstable. I'm not the first person to notice it. Bug?

Its not strictly speaking a bug, it has very low liquidity due to being one of the first multi-choice markets made, and the liquidity values got converted as Manifold updated, leading to extreme volatility. I think its a fun quirk that should be left in, as the instability doesn't affect any more recently created markets.

The Wikipedia will not be clarified should be removed, as the market can still be resolved after closing, or resolved NA at closing

Also does "shut up and calculate" really count as an interpretation?

Copenhagen makes the most sense under a simulation hypothesis no?

Why? Do you think it has smaller computation complexity?

I am not even sure it provides a complete description of how things are. It works with microscopic world that follows quantum laws, classical world which does not, and does not say where is the boundary between them, or how to experimentally find it..

Bohmian mechanics can’t do indistinguishable particles.

Seems like the question has suddenly very small liquidity, it is very easy to move the options.

@SirSalty

Reasons for Aaronson to doubt Bohmian mechanics:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0412143.pdf

> Bohmian mechanics is incompatible with the belief that all physical observables are

discrete. But in my view, there are strong reasons to hold that belief, which include black

hole entropy bounds; the existence of a natural minimum length scale (10−33 cm); results

on area quantization in quantum gravity [205]; the fact that many physical quantities once

thought to be continuous have turned out to be discrete; the infinities of quantum field

theory; the implausibility of analog “hypercomputers”; and conceptual problems raised by

the independence of the continuum hypothesis.

multiversers coping

@LivInTheLookingGlass "Wikipedia will not be clarified by market close" isn't a valid answer, right? Because the market can resolve at any point after it is closed.

http://physicsisnotweird.com/

@L in particular the first one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFSbvrT8PHg

@L are there, like, equations to go with the pretty animations? This is incredibly handwavy. It's not even clear whether the author is trying to modify QM, interpret it in a new way, or give a visual intuition for an existing interpretation.

@DAL59 Damn manifold not yet allow me to bet against it. So much sweetie mana lost

@FranklinBaldo I commit to making another of this market if a free response market with short selling is released

There is no "truth", these all make the same predictions for all experiments and are therefore totally equivalent to each other. I expect that Wikipedia editors realize this and will never state that one is "correct" or "most correct".

@Eel13 The whole point of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics is trying to reconcile it with philosophical realism. That is (for this subject) the claim that what physic studies is independant from the mind.

Bohmian is a good example, claiming that particle have an actual configuration when unobserved, guided by a pilot wave. Unfortunately, this has serious flaws that are demonstated by Alain Aspect experiments.

Copenhagen interpretation makes no attempt at realism. So it's barely an interpretation, as the "shut up and calculate" motto.

@Zardoru Bohmian mechanics has no flaws. None of these do as far as we know (and if they do have flaws, they all have the same flaws). They make exactly the same predictions in all cases, so there is no way we could ever say that one is more correct than another. The only advantage of one over another is if it's more intuitive or easier to understand and use. And that's totally subjective, which is why I think Wikipedia will never label one as "correct".

@Eel13 The interpretations share the same equations for the wave function. However, they don't explain measurement the same way. Copenhagen doesn't explain it at all, it states that the wave function collapse. However a measurement is a physical event, it should follow the same rule as the other.

"Many worlds" has interpretation has no collapsing. Everett presented it as a theory, not just an interpretation.

@Zardoru “Copenhagen doesn’t explain it at all”, that’s not correct. Copenhagen explains measurements via wave function collapse.

“It should follow the same rule as the other”, says who? There’s no rule that says measurements have to behave any differently than the Copenhagen interpretation describes.

It might be less subjectively intuitive to you, in that sense it’s fine that you prefer the many worlds interpretation. But that doesn’t make it more or less correct.

Everett presented it as a theory because he hadn’t yet proved that it produced all the same predictions as the Copenhagen interpretation. Now that we know the predictions are identical, it’s best described as a new interpretation rather than as a new theory.

@Eel13 Who says ? Max Tegmark, well better than I could. See https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/quantum.pdf

Well, we have 30 years before resolution. We will see how the perception of this evolves, for me the trend is quite clear.

About "Orchestrated Objective Reduction" that is currently at a huge 17%, it's not just an "interpretation" as it makes specific claims about the brain and consciousness. Penrose argumentation relies heavily on an math argument about Gödel's theorem. Best critic is by Scott Aaronson here : https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec10.5.html

@Zardoru we may not be able to ask about substratum even in principle. we will see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFSbvrT8PHg