Since [non-ontological] collapse is experimentally compatible with "shut up and calculate", which is the minimal non-interpretation of QM...
... and is isomorphic to MWI...
This is quite misleading.
Doesn't seem like it. You have an initial state which is some ensemble of energy eigenstates. You do measurements, and thereby lose some of them. Looks like energy went somewhere to me. Of course under non-ontological collapse you can say 'we're isomorphic to QM! Without interpretation!' but when you come across a statement 'we're conserving this quantity we just changed!', something needs interpretation here.
If your interpretation is that the other parts of the wavefunction are still out there and that's how it's still conserved... well... guess what you just did. If you have any other solutions, I'm willing to hear them -- but I think you've been using the MWI all along, you just don't admit it.
... and is isomorphic to MWI...
... or any other interpretation...
Of course under non-ontological collapse you can say 'we're isomorphic to QM! Without interpretation!' [...] something needs interpretation here.
I guess our disagreement is whether "something needs interpretation here". I hold all models with the same consequences as isomorphic, with people being free to use what works best for them for a given problem. I also don't give any stock to Occam's razor arguments to argue for one of several mathematically equivalent approaches.
...I
This is a thread where people can ask questions that they would ordinarily feel embarrassed for not knowing the answer to. The previous thread is at close to 500 comments.