How many interpretations of QM do you speak?

[Demystifier]

For me, different interpretations of QM are like different languages, namely, different ways to speak about the same quantum formalism and phenomena. When someone speaks about QM in terms of one interpretation, usually there is a way to translate it to another interpretation. The more interpretations you know, the richer your understanding of QM is. Which interpretations are you familiar with, and at which level?

My account is roughly this:
Expert level: Bohmian mechanics
Fluent: many worlds, statistical ensemble, instrumental, Copenhagen (various dialects), collapse by consciousness
Good: QBism, relational, Nelson (stochastic)
Basic: dynamical collapse, consistent histories, quantum logic

 

[Matterwave]

Half a step above basic: Instrumentalist / Copenhagen / Ballentine style Ensemble

I was mostly taught this during my undergrad/grad program many years ago. Ballentine is my reference for basic QM formalism.

Basic:

Bohmian
I watch a lot of Tim Maudlin on YouTube and read posts here by @Demystifier haha.

MWI
I've read the basic development in Everett's dissertation and I watch Sean Carroll talk about it sometimes.

I know they exist:
Consistent Histories, Qbism, Relational.

Not exactly interpretations, but I know it exists:
GRW

 

[jeffn1]

Sorry if this is slightly off the question (if so, can move to other thread), but how how does Art Hobson's view fit in this? Is it fair to say that he claims (non-local) quantum fields and decoherence explain everything (maybe a bit too simple). But (continuing), he does not offer an interpretation with enough details to be considered an "interpretation"? Is there an existing full blown interpretation that would tend to encompass his view? What is closest? [Sorry, I suppose I am being a bit needy here.]

 

[gentzen]

…, but how how does Art Hobson's view fit in this? Is it fair to say that he claims (non-local) quantum fields and decoherence explain everything (maybe a bit too simple). But (continuing), he does not offer an interpretation with enough details to be considered an "interpretation"? Is there an existing full blown interpretation that would tend to encompass his view? What is closest?

The closest is orthodox QM. The belief „there is nothing special here to see“ is a typical orthodox position. It is not Copenhagen, because Copenhagen emphasises the role of observers or of a macroscopic measurement apparatus. A typical representant of that school is van Kampen.

 

[PeterDonis]

The closest is orthodox QM.

By "orthodox QM", do you basically mean "shut up and calculate"? In other words, once you've done the math and made the predictions and seen that they are confirmed by experiment, there's nothing more you can do?

 

[Matterwave]

By "orthodox QM", do you basically mean "shut up and calculate"? In other words, once you've done the math and made the predictions and seen that they are confirmed by experiment, there's nothing more you can do?

This is roughly my view of Orthodox QM. Maybe sprinkled with a little bit of Copenhagen. And some hand waving to get rid of consciousness causes collapse.

 

[gentzen]

By "orthodox QM", do you basically mean "shut up and calculate"?

No, rather „let me calculate and explain“. But even this is too short, because it is not just „calculate“, but also to analyse which effects will be important and which can be neglected. On the other hand, „calculate“ is not a bad characterization, because one explains and talks about things where one can still calculate, not about some hypothetical Hilbert space of the entire universe.