[woopsn]

What set the ideas of physicists like Bohr, Born, Heisenberg and Pauli apart is that they led to the creation of quantum mechanics. The criticisms Schrödinger made in his time are worth a lot of attention as well, but nothing really since that era has come from the mere interpretation of physics. Whereas they fundamentally changed the course of physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. as sciences. The Copenhagen interpretation remains mainstream for the same reason that it had to come "first" (imo), which is simply that it is the most practicable.

[nimish]

I have nothing against Copenhagen per se (I prefer Rovelli's RQM which is a minor extension of it), it's that until we have evidence otherwise there's quite a space of consistent metaphysics that are equally valid.

That freedom is what needs to be emphasized because a lot of paradoxes in one interpretation are not in another because they basically boil down to your choice of metaphysical assumptions about the universe.

None of them alter the calculations or observables (so far) which is why saying one is more practical than the other is missing the point.