> traditional collapse theories have a bunch of trouble setting up clear lines of what macroscopic is, how collapse actually occurs, etc. that do not seem to ha

> traditional collapse theories have a bunch of trouble setting up clear lines of what macroscopic is, how collapse actually occurs, etc. that do not seem to have easy resolutions All of this is true. But none of it makes it "obvious" that the Schrodinger equation must always be exactly correct and that one should be "dumbfounded" (your word) that any interpretation (like Copenhagen) that says otherwise has any proponents at all. Yes, "collapse" is an obvious open question that hasn't been resolved. But the belief that some way of resolving it will eventually be found that doesn't require accepting the MWI is a perfectly reasonable belief to hold, and an interpretation like Copenhagen is a perfectly reasonable interpretation for people to use in the interim while we search for such a resolution.