Of course under non-ontological collapse you can say ‘we’re isomorphic to QM! Without interpretation!’ [...] something needs interpretation here.
I guess our disagreement is whether “something needs interpretation here”. I hold all models with the same consequences as isomorphic, with people being free to use what works best for them for a given problem. I also don’t give any stock to Occam’s razor arguments to argue for one of several mathematically equivalent approaches.
If your interpretation is that the other parts of the wavefunction are still out there and that’s how it’s still conserved… well… guess what you just did. If you have any other solutions, I’m willing to hear them—but I think you’ve been using the MWI all along, you just don’t admit it.
If you have any arguments why one of the many untestables is better than the rest, I’m willing to hear them—but I think you’ve been using “shut-up-and-calculate” all along, you just don’t admit it.
… or any other interpretation...
I guess our disagreement is whether “something needs interpretation here”. I hold all models with the same consequences as isomorphic, with people being free to use what works best for them for a given problem. I also don’t give any stock to Occam’s razor arguments to argue for one of several mathematically equivalent approaches.
If you have any arguments why one of the many untestables is better than the rest, I’m willing to hear them—but I think you’ve been using “shut-up-and-calculate” all along, you just don’t admit it.
I totally do admit it. MWI just happens to be what I call it. You’re the one who’s been saying it’s different.