This has been the winning strategy so far, as using the map (theoretical model) leads to excellent agreement with experiment, while the territory (ground level reality) steadfastly defies common sense interpretation.
Well let me know when someone reproduces someone else's time traveling experiment. Until then I'm going to bet that the plethora of (untested, often philosophical) exotic QM interpretations are based on an incomplete model and are as misguided as they seem.
The problem with QM isn't that it isn't predictive, but that people in the field often seem incredibly sure of fundamental nuances of reality that have never been experimentally tested.
The problem with QM isn't that it isn't predictive, but that people in the field often seem incredibly sure of fundamental nuances of reality that have never been experimentally tested.