An interpredtation does not provide any additional mechanics on top of the thing it interprets. Thefore its the same thing to ask of just QM.
In terms of quantum circuitly you wuld probably be looking to something equivalent of a controlled Hadamar gate, which is controlled on when you want branching and controlled off when you don’t want branching (you have to start from a state that you consider a low number of worlds state (in respect to the qubit it is working on)).
Sean Carrol atleast in some of the speeches does a bit where he queries a spin meaasurement by phone and take a step to the left or right based on the result. You could condition that on only doing it in the bad worlds (say that its is raining). If there is a base chance of 50% rain (2 worlds) then you go to 50% stand center it is is sunny, 25% stand left it rains and 25% stand right it rains (3 worlds). Note that this is not an effective rain dance but it does increase the number of worlds.
What you might have wanted to ask is how to increase the measure of good worlds in comparison to bad worlds. Part of the magic of quantum computing is that we can get results that are more often useful than just running the calculation in each world separately. But even then we mostly increase “good details”, we provide stabilitity to the data and chuck the superpositionness to the noise.
In that vein the approach seems often be the opposite, when things are going good you want to keep everything as is and when things are going bad you roll the dice to get anywhere else than here.
An interpredtation does not provide any additional mechanics on top of the thing it interprets. Thefore its the same thing to ask of just QM.
In terms of quantum circuitly you wuld probably be looking to something equivalent of a controlled Hadamar gate, which is controlled on when you want branching and controlled off when you don’t want branching (you have to start from a state that you consider a low number of worlds state (in respect to the qubit it is working on)).
Sean Carrol atleast in some of the speeches does a bit where he queries a spin meaasurement by phone and take a step to the left or right based on the result. You could condition that on only doing it in the bad worlds (say that its is raining). If there is a base chance of 50% rain (2 worlds) then you go to 50% stand center it is is sunny, 25% stand left it rains and 25% stand right it rains (3 worlds). Note that this is not an effective rain dance but it does increase the number of worlds.
What you might have wanted to ask is how to increase the measure of good worlds in comparison to bad worlds. Part of the magic of quantum computing is that we can get results that are more often useful than just running the calculation in each world separately. But even then we mostly increase “good details”, we provide stabilitity to the data and chuck the superpositionness to the noise.
In that vein the approach seems often be the opposite, when things are going good you want to keep everything as is and when things are going bad you roll the dice to get anywhere else than here.