No way. BM is like the last vestige of physics as the study of nature in the way ancient Greeks/Aristotle (grandad of much of science, father of biology and all

No way. BM is like the last vestige of physics as the study of nature in the way ancient Greeks/Aristotle (grandad of much of science, father of biology and all) understood it. To go a-interpretational about physics is a two-millennia long paradigm shift. To me that’s why BM is so interesting. Non-local Hidden variables keep that tradition alive in a recognizable way. The Greeks set us up for 2500 years of scientific progress in this vein. If probability becomes subjective (MWI) or we detach science from nature by going interpretation-less we have no concise foundation to propel science for years and years. I’m not saying this is a reason to believe BM, but it’s by far the most conservative and in line with how we made progress before. QM really really did a number on most physicists. Like Nima-Arkani Hamed says, radical conservatism is the best approach in physics. Anything but BM is just radical when we have the history of science we do. I don’t think BM is necessarily right like I said, but its role is fascinating in this respect. Past ways can be over encumbering, as a mitigating factor to BM. But I think physics has yet to require complete paradigm shift that I see in other/non interpretations.