How to make peace with the weirdness of quantum mechanics

[C C]

Not sure that this really makes any peace with common sense advocacy, though. As long as you believe in traditional _X_ and reject various other alphabet placeholders, then it will probably continue to nag at your metaphysical preferences.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

How to make peace with the weirdness of quantum mechanics
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...mechanics/

EXCERPT: [...] #7: There are many ways to “interpret” quantum physics, but our interpretations are not reality. This is, at least in my opinion, the trickiest part of the whole endeavor. It’s one thing to be able to write down equations that describe the universe and agree with experiments. It’s quite another thing to accurately describe just exactly what’s happening in a measurement-independent way.

Can you?

I would argue that this is a fool’s errand. Physics is, at its core, about what you can predict, observe, and measure in this universe. Yet when you make a measurement, what is it that’s occurring? And what does that mean about reality? Is reality:

• a series of quantum wavefunctions that instantaneously “collapse” upon making a measurement?
  
• an infinite ensemble of quantum waves, where measurement “selects” one of those ensemble members?
  
• a superposition of forward-moving and backward-moving potentials that meet up, now, in some sort of “quantum handshake?”
  
• an infinite number of possible worlds, where each world corresponds to one outcome, and yet our universe will only ever walk down one of those paths?
  

If you believe this line of thought is useful, you’ll answer, “Who knows; let’s try to find out.” But if you’re like me, you’ll think this line of thought offers no knowledge and is a dead end. Unless you can find an experimental benefit of one interpretation over another — unless you can test them against each other in some sort of laboratory setting — all you’re doing in choosing an interpretation is presenting your own human biases. If it isn’t the evidence doing the deciding, it’s very hard to argue that there’s any scientific merit to your endeavor at all.

If you were to only teach someone the classical laws of physics that we thought governed the universe as recently as the end of the 19th century, they would be utterly astounded by the implications of quantum mechanics. There is no such thing as a “true reality” that’s independent of the observer; in fact, the very act of making a measurement alters your system irrevocably. Additionally, nature itself is inherently uncertain, with quantum fluctuations being responsible for everything from the radioactive decay of atoms to the initial seeds of structure that allow the universe to grow up and form stars, galaxies, and eventually, human beings.

The quantum nature of the universe is written on the face of every object that now exists within it. And yet, it teaches us a humbling point of view: that unless we make a measurement that reveals or determines a specific quantum property of our reality, that property will remain indeterminate until such a time arises... (MORE - missing details)