AFAIK, this is an exaggeration to the point of incorrectness.
The Copenhagen interpretation may be a poor interpretation which introduces absurd complicated ideas rather than the simpler ideas of other interpretations, but that doesn't make it "flat out wrong".
Why? Is there a formal proof of that claim?
An infinite sequence of epicycles could be used to accurate model any orbital path, in a similar sense to how a Taylor series can represent any function as an infinite series of polynomials. It's not wrong in the mathematical sense, but rather the philosophical: a needlessly complex theory that is hard to work with and which provides no advantages or insight over the simpler theory is declared wrong, even if it provides, or could provide the same predictions.
So it is with quantum mechanics. The standard Copenhagen interpretation of QM requires notions of observers and mysterious faster-than-light transfer of state which is really hard to reconcile with the modern scientific view of the world. The mystery surrounding it (in the religious sense) has let to disproportionally many cranks who misinterpret the theory into statements about "quantum consciousness" or other new-age nonsensical tie-ins.
However these issues arise to a lesser extent with the many-worlds interpretation, and not at all with pilot wave theory. The former is nothing more than reinterpretation of the same equations, and the latter is a different formulation that is nevertheless mathematically identical as far as it has been worked out. If we had started with many-worlds, or better yet pilot-wave, then we wouldn't have a century of people growing up with 2nd-hand tales about how the world is governed by a mystical and incomprehensible theory of matter that even physicists don't understand. Which is utter bullocks.
I didn't say it is mathematically wrong
> It is "wrong" by Ockham's razor.
You do know that there are dozens of mathematical and formal versions of Ockham's razor.
Show me a formal version in which it is wrong. Otherwise arguing about this is like discussing politics where the loudest voice wins. Using English to debate the philosophical foundations of physcis after almost a hundred years of Hilbert, Gödel etc is what is wrong.
> Do it yourself.
This is why the Copenhagen interpretation still lives on and will live on if its detractors are too lazy to formalize things decently.
Yet for inane reasons the Conpenhagen interpretation is still ALL that is taught to the next generation of physicists, who in turn teach it to their students. Only the weird physics students (like me) who go "wtf?" in class and refuse to believe the teacher go out and learn pilot-wave theory (my preference) or many-worlds interpretation to re-inject some sanity into the world.