MWI or non-ontological collapse gets you to a place where you can even entertain the notion that the framework of Quantum Mechanics is correct and complete, so that:
you can stop worrying about bogus unphysical theories that you’d only invent in an attempt to make things look normal again, and
you’re more comfortable with working with larger superpositions.
It’s modifying Physics. A theory that doesn’t act like physics. A theory that produces no new predictions but invents details to shuffle our ignorance into different more palatable forms.
I’m thinking of, on the one hand, objective collapse, and on the other hand, global hidden variables about imagined real states—variables which, in order to be anything like compatible with QM must mysteriously shuffle around so that each time you measure one that is the end of its domain of applicability and you’ll never be able to use that information for anything.
MWI or non-ontological collapse gets you to a place where you can even entertain the notion that the framework of Quantum Mechanics is correct and complete, so that:
you can stop worrying about bogus unphysical theories that you’d only invent in an attempt to make things look normal again, and
you’re more comfortable with working with larger superpositions.
How is this preferable to the “shut up and calculate” interpretation of QM?
Is ‘unphysical’ anything at all like ‘unchristian’? In other words, is ‘un’ modifying ‘physics’ or ‘physicists’?
It’s modifying Physics. A theory that doesn’t act like physics. A theory that produces no new predictions but invents details to shuffle our ignorance into different more palatable forms.
I’m thinking of, on the one hand, objective collapse, and on the other hand, global hidden variables about imagined real states—variables which, in order to be anything like compatible with QM must mysteriously shuffle around so that each time you measure one that is the end of its domain of applicability and you’ll never be able to use that information for anything.
I think you are confusing “theory” and “interpretation.” There is consensus on the vast majority (all?) of QM, the physical theory.
“Interpretations” are stories we tell ourselves. Arguing about interpretation is like arguing about taste.
Fine, but something needs explanation when you’ve got this energy-conserving theory which results in the energy content of the universe changing.
The quantum theory has the same predictions for all interpretations, and does not violate energy conservation.
I don’t know what “energy content of the universe changing” means if energy is conserved. You are arguing about taste.