I suppose one would only gain a simpler theory, since both theories predict the same thing. So from the perspective of neatness, I'd prefer to have one less postulate. From the perspective of actually solving problems, none of this matters.

Right.

In fact, none of my professors throughout college ever brought up the topic of interpretation, except to say that it was complicated. I suppose that's why I don't sound like a grad student to you; though I can solve problems very well, everything I know about the interpretations of the theory I have gleaned from textbooks and the internet; I have yet to look at specific papers, or study it in depth.

I was in the same boat, having gone through all the undergrad and grad quantum courses without learning anything about ontology, except for the general unease with the Born postulate. This is a common situation. Only Quantum Information courses are sometimes different. And philosophy of physics, but I don't take those seriously.

Part of the reason I want to write more on this is to have an excuse to force myself to learn/study more on the issue; it is still possible to change my mind, after all.

By all means, just make sure you don't have a "favored interpretation" when you start, it will bias you without you noticing.

Though on the issue of reversibility; if we accept the mind is capable of being simulated by a computer, and we had a computer that was made of Toffoli gates (or the quantum version, if such a thing exists), would that mind not then be reversible?

There are arguments that dissipation and irreversibility is essential for consciousness. Whether they are any good will depend on what consciousness is. At this point we have very little to go on beyond "hopefully it can be simulated some day".