Which many-world-ish interpretation is right?
1
175Ṁ703000
34%
Everett’s original
34%
Decoherence & decision-theoretic Many-Worlds (Wallace)
34%
Envariance / Quantum Darwinism (Zurek)
34%
Self-Locating Uncertainty Many-Worlds (Vaidman)
34%
Decoherent Histories (Gell-Mann–Hartle)
34%
Many-Minds (Albert–Loewer)
34%
Self-Locating Uncertainty Many-Worlds (Sebens–Carroll)
There are many many-world-ish interpretations of quantum theory that draw inspirations from Hugh Everett's work (https://everett2021.weebly.com/). Which, if any, gives a correct description of Nature?
An answer resolves when there is widespread scientific consensus about it.
Anyone can add answers.
By trading in this market, you agree to let me be the judge for subjective matters associated with this market (e.g., what counts as "widespread scientific consensus"). When in doubt, ask before trading.
This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.
Get 
1,000 to start trading!
1,000People are also trading
Related questions
Will future language models converge on "what Einstein would have thought of Many-Worlds?" before 2036?
46% chance
P vs NP. Which of Impagliazzo's Five Worlds is true?
What opinion will future language models converge to, on what Einstein would have thought of Many-Worlds?
Which interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is closest to the truth?