There are multiple ways to interpret QM which all work out on paper and experimentally agree. There's nothing wrong with the "intellectual respectability" of non-Copenhagen interpretations, other than historical stigmata.

Edit: If you're worked up about "stigmata", just wait for "schemata", "indices", and "alumni".

>historical stigmata

I only point out typos that are silly, so with that in mind: Stigmata is where you develop sores or bleeding on your hands as some sort of weird solidarity with Jesus. I imagine that would make writing papers harder.

stigmata is the plural form of stigma, which is

    1 a archaic :  a scar left by a hot iron
      b         :  a mark of shame or discredit

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stigmata

The link you provided says

> "When the plural form stigmata is used, it usually refers to the nail wounds on Christ's hands and feet, wounds which have sometimes reappeared on the hands or feet of later worshippers such as St. Francis."

usually !~ (always|only). OP's usage was fine and the complainant looked more ignorant than petty.

It's a perfectly cromulent plural, but it immediately brings Jesus to mind, and I'm solidly non-religious and not even raised Christian.

It's not proven impossible so it's very much possible - what is your argument to disprove the multiverse theories?

The Copenhagen interpretation is wrong. There have been developments in alternatives but as Max Plank said, we need the current generation scientists to die out so that the better saner alternative can replace it.