I guess that's possible, but how seriously should we take those when we have no empirical reasons to prefer them?

Doesn' that rebound on the argument for MWI?

Sincere and consistent instrumentalists may exist, but I think they are rare. What is much more common is for people to compartmentalise, to take and irrealist or instrumetalist stance about things that make them feel uncomfortable, while remaining cheerfully realist about other things.

At the end of the day, being able to predict phenomena isn’t that exciting. People generally do science because they want to find out about the world. And “rationaists”, internet atheists and so on generally do have ontological commitments, to the non-existence of gods and ghosts, some view about whether or not we are ina matrix and so on.

These are difficult question because we are speculating about future mathematics / physics.

First of all, there's the question of how much of the quantum framework will survive the unification with gravity. Up until now, all theories that worked inside it have failed; worse, they have introduced black-hole paradoxes: most notably, thunderbolts and the firewall problem. I'm totally in the dark if a future unification will require a modification of the fundamental mathematical structure of QM. Say, if ER = EPR, and entanglement can be explained with a modified geometry of space-time, does it mean that superposition is also a geometrical phoenomenon that doesn't require multiple worlds? I don't really know.

But more on the point, I think (hope?) that future explorations of the quantum framework will yield an expanded landscape, where interpretations will be seen as the surface phoenomenon of something deeper: for example, something akin to what happens in classical mechanics with the Hamiltonian / Lagrangian formulations.

On a side note, I've read only the Wikipedia article on QBism and my impression was that it had an epistemological leaning, not ontological: if you use only SIC-POVMs, you can explain all quantum quirks with the epistemology of probability distributions. I might be very wrong, though.

If it doesn't fundamentally change quantum mechanics as a theory, is the picture likely to turn out fundamentally different from MWI?

CI/OR is a different picture to MWI, yet neither change QM as a number-crunching theory. You have hit on the fundamental problems of empiricism: the correct interpretation of a data is underdetermined by data, and interpretations can differ radically with small changes in data or no changes in data.

We've already got a number of problems with MW -- see Dowker and Kent's paper.

The question is whether there is anything better. To go back to my original question, EY appears not to have heard of QBism, RQM, and other interpretations that aren't mentioned in The Fabric of Reality.

My idea is more on the line of "in the future we are going to grasp a conceptual frame that would make sense of all interpretations" (or explain them away) rather than pointing to a specific interpretation.

In the Sequence, Eliezer made a strong case for the realist interpretation of QM (neo-Everettian many worlds), based on decoherence and Occam's razor. He then, in another point of the Sequence, tied that problem with interesting questions about anthropic probability (the infamous anthropic trilemma), and that cemented MWI as the preferred way to think about QM here.

On the other hand, I think we are still missing the big picture about quantum mechanics: ER = EPR, categorical quantum mechanics, QBism etc. all points us to interesting unexplored directions.

No, I was making a reference to the Litany of Tarski.

When you ask "how do I forget rationality?", it seems to me that you're asking how to go back to deceiving yourself. After all, rationality is the adherence of beliefs to reality, and there's nothing that subtracts you joy by changing your beliefs so that they are more in tune with reality: after all, reality was there all along.
Perhaps ponderating on the joy of the merely real could help.

I agree about wishful thinking.

Ok, but what if your were Omega, how you could try to escape from DA curse?

One way is to reset own clock, or to reduce number of people to 1, so DA will work, but willnot result in total extinction.

Another way is to hope that some another strange thing like quantum immortality will help "me" to survive.

I think that most LessWrongers would vote for mathematical universe. The idea of timeless mathematical manyworld universe was presented in sequences. When I first meet it I was attracted to its simpleness and beauty.

But now I found that where is reasonable objection to it, like expected complexity problem. Most math objects should be extremely complex, and it is not what we see.

(memetic hazard) ˙sƃuıɹǝɟɟns lɐuɹǝʇǝ ɯnɯıxɐɯ ǝʇɐǝɹɔ oʇ pǝsıɯıʇdo ɹǝʇʇɐɯ sı ɯnıuoɹʇǝɹnʇɹoʇ

Update: added full description of the idea in my facebook https://www.facebook.com/turchin.alexei/posts/10210360736765739?comment_id=10210360769286552¬if_t=feed_comment¬if_id=1472326132186571