I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the difference between an interpretation as a way of thinking about something and an inte

I am not really sure what you are trying to say. Are you talking about the difference between an interpretation as a way of thinking about something and an interpretation as describing what something really is? It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them. General relativity works just fine without an embedding space but there still could be one. Not that you should think about it in this way without good reasons but only because it is more intuitive. But in the case of quantum mechanics we do - at least that is what I think - understand things so poorly that it is hard to judge what one should reasonably consider while making contact with questions about the fundamental nature of things.