>There are presumably more things that "don't go away when you stop believing in them" than "what outcomes of experiments should be." If so, I don't know what.

>There are presumably more things that "don't go away when you stop believing in them" than "what outcomes of experiments should be." If so, I don't know what. Anyway, I think you're implicitly privileging one abstraction, called an "interpretation" over "just the plain math". But if they're equivalent, what is real about choosing one or the other, let alone between different "interpretations"? Why is an "interpretation" a real thing and not the equations? This seems structurally similar to a classic theological argument between theist and atheist; ok, you believe in a god, but why that particular god? And if there's no reason for a particular god, why bother with any?