I don't know what you mean by "science can't think of anything better".

I'm simply using the standard that a statement is objectively meaningful if it states some alleged objective fact.

I reject the notion of hidden variables (except possibly the core of oneself, the existence of the ego) as un-Bayesian. With that one potential exception, all objective facts are testable, at least in principle (though some may be impractical to test).

I fail to see how one can be rational and not believe that. I'm not saying this to insult, but to get an explanation of what you think I've overlooked.