What are the problems with the consistent histories interpretation?

[jlcd]

Consistent Histories is the most logical. Here you have Many worlds.. and factorization defaults (collapse) to one world dictated by the consistent histories with temporal reversibility in the histories backtracking.

Can't it also create all the constants of nature.. the consistent histories produce the right constants all the way to the big bang. This can solve the fine tuning, hierarchy problems, and others.

What do you think is the problem with Consistent Histories, if there is any?

 

[Simon Bridge]

All "interpretations" and "approaches" provide a narrative for all the observed phenomena. What counts as "most logical" depends on personal taste.
Coming up with logical frameworks like this is not the problem - it's coming up with an empirical way to choose one over another.
For issues with "consistent histories" you could try starting with:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2586

 

[bhobba]

Simon is correct.

Consistent Histories is a nice interpretation but for me its like defining your way out of problems. For example don't like the observation problem - then don't have observations - instead you have a theory about histories.

Thanks
Bill