This market will resolve when Wikipedia states that a specific interpretation is correct, and I deem it not to be vandalism
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