As a fellow non-expert, I use tables like [0] to help keep everything straight. Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation says that the wavefunctions we manipulate ar

As a fellow non-expert, I use tables like [0] to help keep everything straight. Yes, the Copenhagen interpretation says that the wavefunctions we manipulate are epistemic; they exist in our mind and on the blackboard but not necessarily IRL. The epistemic toy theory [1] makes this concept very concrete, although note that that theory has hidden local variables and thus doesn't correctly implement Bell/KS/Free Will. Yes, MWI is quite ontic; it's probably the most ontic that a QM interpretation can be, since it insists that all possibilities exist. Just like modal realism, MWI is the most extreme of the phrasings in that direction. Non-locality sadly isn't negotiable anymore. Bell's inequalities have been violated in laboratories well enough to my satisfaction [2], so theories that can't handle it need to be fully rejected. I'm not sure what's left; maybe the transactional interpretation? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mec... [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052 https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401052 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments