The interpretations don't tell you anything that the calculations didn't tell you already (if an interpretation of quantum mechanics ever predicts something dif

The interpretations don't tell you anything that the calculations didn't tell you already (if an interpretation of quantum mechanics ever predicts something different from what quantum mechanics predicts, then it can be ruled out empirically by performing the appropriate experiment). Interpretations which don't give you a faster way to get to the results of those calculations just waste your time and get in the way of understanding. Theoretical computer science indicates that there is no significantly faster way to get the results of many of those calculations - no matter how elegant the interpretation feels, at best you have to do the same amount of work to get the same answers about what will actually happen in reality, and at worst you end up computing a million irrelevant details about things the interpretation invented which have no real-world consequence. Someone who is genuinely interested in understanding the way the world works ends up asking questions about what goes into the calculations - what's the Lagrangian, how many degrees of freedom (i.e. quantum fields) are there, what symmetries or constraints are satisfied by the laws of physics, how can we set up the math to avoid pathological situations where the results of our computations are infinite, and so on. Philosophically motivated interpretations of quantum mechanics shed exactly zero light on these questions. Well.. there is a caveat. If quantum mechanics was somehow incorrect - that is, if unitary evolution of a state vector in a Hilbert space didn't actually describe reality at all - then all of the above would be wrong. But in that case, every single interpretation of quantum mechanics would be wrong as well. Quantum computers would just flat out not work.