Hey thanks for your thoughtful response. In terms of what we may/not be missing out on, I say that because it seems few of the possibilities remaining after a

Hey thanks for your thoughtful response. In terms of what we may/not be missing out on, I say that because it seems few of the possibilities remaining after a century of investigation (many worlds, relational/information based approaches, etc) contain any new physics or scientific insight. Eg if we could somehow tell that MW or pilot wave theory is "correct", we would still have nothing to do but shut up and calculate the same things, no? If unitary evolution continues in some sense, we would still need to throw factors away in order for the theory to remain predictive to us. Particles are only observed to be in a single place at a single time. My understanding is that it may be that we lose the perspective necessary to see them elsewhere, since we are embedded in the same eigenstate (or something close to it). But the task of science is confined to observables. I question, what are the scientific questions that collapse postulate holds back from being solved?