> Of course, you'll get the same answer either way - the earth moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun and contributes a tiny amount of the total inertia of

> Of course, you'll get the same answer either way - the earth moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun and contributes a tiny amount of the total inertia of the system. That was my point. Saying "the earth moves in an elliptical orbit around the sun" is not compatible with what you wrote previously, "both of these are equally right," when one of the statements in question is that the Sun and planets move in orbits around the Earth. This part of the Wikipedia quote underscores this: > Relativity agrees with Newtonian predictions that regardless of whether the Sun or the Earth are chosen arbitrarily as the center of the coordinate system describing the Solar System, the paths of the planets form (roughly) ellipses with respect to the Sun, not the Earth. The quote you provided describes the same distinction I was making: there is a predictive equivalence between a geocentric and heliocentric model, i.e. either coordinate system can give the correct results; but, the two models do not provide equivalent explanatory power. For example, in the geocentric model, you have to explain why planets undergo both prograde and retrograde motion. If you're trying to go beyond simple prediction to understand what's happening, you need an interpretation of the model, beyond just treating it as a black box that spits out predictions. The only correct interpretation of the model is the one in the two quotes above. To bring this back to the original discussion, it seems extremely likely that e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation is much like the geocentric one - its notion of "collapse" is almost certainly something due to our perspective as macroscopic quantum objects interacting with microscopic quantum objects, much as prograde and retrograde motion are a result of our geocentric perspective. Even though one can make correct predictions under Copenhagen, it may be a red herring from an explanatory perspective.