It depends what one considers "significant differences". If I go from caring about the practical implications of an interpretation to some other implications, I could make all sorts of distinctions. Explanation X might be written in French and explanation Y might be written in Spanish. Even if one is a translation of the other, you could say they're different in various ways. Or maybe one explanation contains swear words and makes the reader feel bad and so the reader might not "like" that explanation.
But my point above is more specific. Since the two interpretations have the same practical implications, a practical prediction can't really "need" one interpretation - the other interpretation gives you the result. This is the point about all the hidden objects/states explanations have classical analogues.
And if we're getting metaphysical, Copenhagen doesn't say live cat or dead cat but says superimposed state.
This is saying the interpretations "exist". The interpretation like intermediate values in some calculation process that are never returned. If the interpretations are true, they can be seen, not just "locally".
It seems like a lot of this basically involves people who've "suspended disbelief" provisionally, accepted a violation of their intuition provisionally but still are hankering for their intuition to spring back into validity. It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them.
It's like people who accept that general relativity specifies curved space, understand the implications but are still expecting to somehow find a higher dimensional space that all this is suspended in 'cause that's what a fundamental reality feels like to them.
General relativity works just fine without an embedding space but there still could be one. Not that you should think about it in this way without good reasons but only because it is more intuitive. But in the case of quantum mechanics we do - at least that is what I think - understand things so poorly that it is hard to judge what one should reasonably consider while making contact with questions about the fundamental nature of things.
You're correct but the point is "many worlds" or Copenhagen interpretation having no implications, they each describe the same mathematical/experimental results. They're just "ways to think about the results". They matter as much as whether you label the axes of a graph x and y or A and B. So any theory that "requires" many worlds is inherently not looking using the standard interpretation of many worlds and quantum mechanics.