[light_hue_1]

> They do if they're going into foundations of physics

People don't do PhDs on this topic because it's not productive. Famous/bored/tenured/rich people pitch in arguments for fun. Anyway, the vast majority of work in foundations of physics has nothing to do with these interpretations https://link.springer.com/journal/10701/volumes-and-issues This is a niche inside a niche in a mostly irrelevant field.

No advance in physics has ever been made based on QM interpretations. No Nobel has ever been won. No phenomena have ever been discovered this way. It's just not what people work on and it's not how physics is done.

You're determined that your view of the world is right, and that of actual working scientists is somehow blind orthodoxy that's missing the point. There's nothing I can say to fix that. It's like arguing with an antivaxer. You think you know more than the people doing the work. Bye stranger! But.. it's worth considering that here and elsewhere in life your probably don't know better.

[goatlover]

I'm just repeating arguments that physicists like David Deustch, Sean Carrol, David Wallace, Sabine Hossenfelder have made, because they sound like good arguments to me. Better than ignoring the issues you get with shut up and calculate. Maybe you should take the issue up with them? Perhaps you think throwing out the term antivaxer makes you smarter than Einstein, Schrodinger and Bell?

[light_hue_1]

This is like watching Star Trek and reading a book on the science of Star Trek where people make wild conjectures and coming away thinking that "Oh wow, scientists are working hard on warp drives!".