Thanks for the video, Bucky. I roughly understood three of the four approaches, but had problems with Cubism. If anyone can express it simply, I hope they'll come along and help me out.
Although Sean Carroll is an atheist and I disagree with him on that ground, I think there's something to the many worlds view except I don't believe that all the many worlds exist as actualities; rather, I think they exist as potentialities, until, that is, something actually eventuates. The dart can "spike" at any point on the board--until it spikes at a particular point on the board. Prior to that moment, it could have spiked at any one of myriad other points.
Maybe this view is equivalent to the collapse of a probability wave, but I didn't get the sense that any of the panellists (not 100% sure about the Cubist) was really into the idea that consciousness had any role to play. If you don't believe in a Source consciousness, then the only consciousness that could putatively cause collapse would be that of a local one such as you or I, and I can see how that would be problematic, particularly in respect of phenomena that can be viewed in the same way by many different observers.
OTOH, within an Idealistic framework, where there is nothing but consciousness, then there's no such thing as an event that isn't "observed by consciousness", so to speak. And when you factor in something like Morphic Resonance, that doesn't exclude the possibility of some newly observed phenomenon gradually evolving into one capable of generating a more and more predictable kind of outcome.
I mean, they're all very clever guys and one has to respect their mathematical apprehensions (which are quite beyond my grasp), but if they are predicated on the irrelevance of consciousness, then it would seem to me (if that predicate is untrue), that their models of reality are bound to break down at some point or other. That would apply however accurate they might be in their predictions in certain cases (and I understand they can sometimes be extremely accurate).
If a theory that omits consciousness leads to intractable problems, then that's a fair indication that it might be worth considering the influence of consciousness. I think that the fathers of QM (Shroedinger and others) tended to be much more open to accepting this influence. Like me (they being also aware that QM wouldn't make sense if localised consciousness was the only flavour of consciousness possible), they seemed to lean to the idea that consciousness was all-pervasive and in fact had primacy.
But this, of course, is anathema in a version of science that has become more and more strident in its materialistic outlook. If I'm right, and consciousness has a primal role to play, my prediction is that at some point, materialist approaches to understanding QM will fail: eventually, physicists will have to throw in the towel. I don't think that's going to happen tomorrow or in my lifetime, but sooner or later I think it will.