Which Quantum Mechanical Interpretation to you Like/Prefer?

[MindForgedManacle]

Which interpretation (if any) of Quantum Mechanics do you find most appealing and convincing? My own position would have to be that I have sympathies for both the Many-worlds interpretation and "shut-up and calculate" crowd.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I like this interpretation

[Jackalope]

Honestly, I don't feel that I have enough of a grasp on QM to have an educated opinion on the matter. It seems that so much of what's in dispute is so counter-intuitive that it's difficult to wrap my head around.

I may be over-thinking it. I may be under-thinking it.

This is one area where I'm perfectly willing to admit that I'm too ignorant to feel comfortable taking a side.

[Rayaan]

I like the "We are all connected" interpretation.

[Angrboda]

I'm largely in CD's camp. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a horse in the race. If I did have to choose, I'm squarely in the shutup and calculate camp. Interpretations are fine for pedagogy and as an aid to thinking about the equations, but they smell too much like metaphysics to me, and I'm inclined to agnosticism on any metaphysical question, with the possible exception of certain ontological notions.

To the flames with them all, I say.

[Jackalope]

I'm largely in CD's camp. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a horse in the race. If I did have to choose, I'm squarely in the shutup and calculate crowd. Interpretations are fine for pedagogy and as an aid to thinking about the equations, but they smell too much like metaphysics to me, and I'm inclined to agnosticism on any metaphysical question, with the possible exception of certain ontological notions.

To the flames with them all, I say.

I tend to agree on most points you made. Put simply, if the math supports an interpretation, it's interesting, but not compelling - I want to see some empirical support, and that's the rub, isn't it?

[MindForgedManacle]

I'm largely in CD's camp. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a horse in the race. If I did have to choose, I'm squarely in the shutup and calculate camp. Interpretations are fine for pedagogy and as an aid to thinking about the equations, but they smell too much like metaphysics to me, and I'm inclined to agnosticism on any metaphysical question, with the possible exception of certain ontological notions.

To the flames with them all, I say.

...How Humean. I am pleased.

[Rayaan]

Stand back, humans ... I got this ...

---

---

[Cato]

I'm also with CD and Apo. I have taken linear algebra and differential equations. EE required proficiency with Laplace Transfors and Fourier Analysis, yet I am lacking the mathematical skills to truly appreciate the 'views' being proposed. I approach all with some trepidation.

I am waiting for a trained philosopher that also has the math and physics skill to help me understand. I don't think this person exists.

My pet peeve regarding quantum discussions are those that extend quantum phenomenon at distances greater than a Planck length; these can easily be dismissed. Yes there are 'emergent' systems that display quantum influence greater than a Planck length (superfluidity, electron orbit stabilization, etc.), but Deepak Chopra has an open invitation to suck me off every time he says quantum.

[Theo Zacharias]

Which interpretation (if any) of Quantum Mechanics do you find most appealing and convincing?

The most convincing? None of them are convincing to me. So in this 'convincing' context, I don't want to pick any.
I won't say 'shut-up and calculate' either, at least literally, because I'm interested in a discussion about this (hence I won't say 'shut-up') and I'm less interested in the mathematical formulation (hence I won't say 'calculate').

The most appealing? To me, it's von Neumann interpretation. The reason is because I'm always very fascinated about consciousness phenomena. To me, it's the biggest mystery of all. In my opinion, von Neumann interpretation is the closest thing we have so far that bring consciousness to physics. Unfortunately and ironically, it's one of the least convincing interpretation.

My own position would have to be that I have sympathies for both the Many-worlds interpretation and "shut-up and calculate" crowd.

Why do you sympathies with Many-worlds interpretation?
Do you believe that there exist other worlds beside the one we live in?

I like the "We are all connected" interpretation.

In my opinion, the 'we are all connected' idea is not a QM interpretation.
It's a consequence of the big bang theory and quantum entanglement.
The big bang theory is certainly not a QM interpretation.
Quantum entanglement is also not a QM interpretation. It's a fundamental feature of QM.

My pet peeve regarding quantum discussions are those that extend quantum phenomenon at distances greater than a Planck length; these can easily be dismissed. Yes there are 'emergent' systems that display quantum influence greater than a Planck length (superfluidity, electron orbit stabilization, etc.), but Deepak Chopra has an open invitation to suck me off every time he says quantum.

All quantum phenomenons that are ever observed happen at a distance greater than a Planck length.
The Planck length is actually much smaller than any of our current instrument can measure.
More than that, many physicists believe that we can never measure anything with size less than the Planck length regardless of technology advances.

I think your "pet peeve" is about quantum mysticism, not about quantum phenomenon at distances greater than a Planck length.

Honestly, I don't feel that I have enough of a grasp on QM to have an educated opinion on the matter.

I'm also not an expert in QM.
However, because I'm interested in this subject, it won't stop me to share my opinions.
If my opinions turn out to be false, then I will have to abandon them and adopt new ones.
It's part of a learning process.