As far as I can tell this only provides verification for what QM *describes*. It has nothing to say about the *interpretation* of QM. Before we go any further, I think it’s important that this point be clarified. I just can’t help but suspect something is awry concerning the distinction between description and explanation/interpretation.

As I understand it, QM consists of mathematical equations describing how quantum objects interact and move through space. To verify that the formulas are correct, observations are made to see if the mathematical descriptions match actual observations.

But the verification is of the formulas, i.e., the description. And if I understand correctly, the verification of the description is **inductively inferred** from the *observations* matching with the descriptions.

On the other hand, the interpretations of QM are attempts to explain how things would look if it were possible to actually observe the quantum particles and their environment. If it were possible to make this observation there would be no need for the interpretation.

But because it’s not, an attempt is made to interpret from supporting evidence what would be seen if it actually could be observed. And if I understand correctly, the interpretation is **abductively inferred** from the *supporting evidence*.

If this is correct, then the verification of QM would only apply for what’s being described, and therefore to somehow equate this verification with the interpretation would be to misapply it, unless there were an interconnection that could justify such a move. And I just don’t see any way for such to be the case.

So I’m not saying that supporting evidence doesn’t exist for the different interpretations of QM. I just don’t see how the “fact that standard QM … makes predictions consistent with what we observe”, would qualify as such. But maybe I’m missing something?