FTL
Not if it doesn't allow FTL communication, unless you want to argue that quantum entanglement is a FTL phenomenon, but that wouldn't be an issue of the particular interpretation.
discontinuous non-differentiable
Not necessarily. Irreversible and stochastic quantum processes can be time-continuous and time-differentiable.
Consider the processes described by the Lindblad equation, for instance.
non-CPT-symmetric
CPT symmetry is a property of conventional field theories, not all quantum theories necessarily have it, and IIUC, there are ongoing experiments to search for violations. CPT symmetry is just the last of a series of postulated symmetries, the previous ones (C symmetry, P symmetry, T symmetry and CP symmetry) have been experimentally falsified.
non-unitary
Right, and that's the point of objective collapse theories.
non-local-in-the-configuration-space
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but locality in physics is defined with respect to space and time, not to arbitrary configuration spaces.
to explain a phenomenon (why do we see only one outcome?) that doesn't need explaining.
AFAIK, there have been attempts to derive the Born rule in Everett's interpretation, but they didn't lead to uncontroversial results.
Not necessarily. Irreversible and stochastic quantum processes can be time-continuous and time-differentiable.
I have never seen a proposed mechanism of ontological collapse that actually fits this, though.
Not if it doesn't allow FTL communication
The inability to send a signal that you want, getting instead a Born-Rule-based pure random signal, doesn't change that this Born-Rule-based pure random signal is, under ontological collapse distributed FTL.
I have several questions related to this:
If you visit any Less Wrong page for the first time in a cookies-free browsing mode, you'll see this message for new users:
Here are the worst violators I see on that about page:
And on the sequences page:
This seems obviously false to me.
These may not seem like cultish statements to you, but keep in mind that you are one of the ones who decided to stick around. The typical mind fallacy may be at work. Clearly there is some population that thinks Less Wrong seems cultish, as evidenced by Google's autocomplete, and these look like good candidates for things that makes them think this.
We can fix this stuff easily, since they're both wiki pages, but I thought they were examples worth discussing.
In general, I think we could stand more community effort being put into improving our about page, which you can do now here. It's not that visible to veteran users, but it is very visible to newcomers. Note that it looks as though you'll have to click the little "Force reload from wiki" button on the about page itself for your changes to be published.