I keep being reminded about how our understanding of the world changes ( with some rather dramatic examples in our own history ). Still, in cases like these I like to quote Pratchett:D
“A thousand years ago we thought the world was a bowl,” he said. “Five hundred years ago we knew it was a globe. Today we know it is flat and round and carried through space on the back of a turtle.” He turned and gave the High Priest another smile. “Don’t you wonder what shape it will turn out to be tomorrow?”
I am not suggesting parent is right, but who knows what the future holds.
New scientific models tend to look very much like the older models in some relevant limit, even when they are fundamentally very different. Einstein's relativity looks a whole lot like Newton's relativity at low speeds. Large collections of quantum-mechanical particles tend to behave classically. This is not an accident of history—the old models worked in some domain, which is why they became accepted models. I will counter your Pratchett quote with one from Asimov:
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
This has been the winning strategy so far, as using the map (theoretical model) leads to excellent agreement with experiment, while the territory (ground level reality) steadfastly defies common sense interpretation.
Well let me know when someone reproduces someone else's time traveling experiment. Until then I'm going to bet that the plethora of (untested, often philosophical) exotic QM interpretations are based on an incomplete model and are as misguided as they seem.
The problem with QM isn't that it isn't predictive, but that people in the field often seem incredibly sure of fundamental nuances of reality that have never been experimentally tested.
