>>14006766>don't think any current interpretation is correct, nor does it matter. We're classical beings. Things are only quantum until we interact with them. For quantum computers knowing the math is good enough; for everything else quantum mechanics just doesn't matter.That's not true, MW for example is a purely quantum interpretation without any classical component. There's no wave function collapse, there's only the (universal) wave function. I think other than COPEnhagen most are purely quantum, actually. Picking an interpretation is also useful to understand things intuitively and some even suggest new physics, so it's not entirely useless. In the same vein someone might argue that a geometrical interpretation of curvature and spacetime due to mass doesn't matter for the math, but it's clearly useful for understanding.
>>14006911>Transactional interpretationOh, right, I forgot about this one. The way it's constructed is very clever, but I never thought too deeply about why exactly it's supposedly nice for pedagogical reasons...
Another one I I consider very interesting for more speculative reasons is the Relational Interpretation. It's interesting in that it mixes in a bit of special relativity and quantum information to solve the classical-quantum transition prioblem, explains measurement and hints at a quantum description of spacetime. There's also no wave function collapse which I think is a desirable property because there's no physical reason why that would happen (assuming wave functions themselves are physical in the first place). Which is why
>COPEnhagen explains it such that the wave function is fake and gayjust doesn't sound very exciting :(.
To me it seems like a bit of a cope to sorta-kinda make it look a bit more like a classical thing when it isn't at all. Understandable when QM was new and weird, but it seems to confuse things for no gain.
>>14006959Yes, this one .
