Or a mormon.

Looking back at all the QM courses I took including those in my undergrad I would like to make the following remark, I really really do not care about interpretations.

Really? Then why are you reading a blog about the foundations of quantum theory? Seriously though, no one can be expected to care about everything they learn in their undergraduate courses, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be taught it. From my point of view, I can say that solving endless variations on the atomic model with ever more sophisticated interactions included via perturbation theory was not my idea of a fun party, but it was good for me to learn it nonetheless.

My view on foundations is that it will be useful for physicists to have at least a little more understanding than is the norm at present, because these issues become important when applying quantum theory in new regimes. For example, the arguments that raged over the quantum Zeno effect for several years could have been avoided if physicists had a more sophisticated understanding of the meaning and limited applicability of the projection postulate. That’s just one example, but there are many others involving things like entanglement, naive reasoning about the “path” that a particle takes in an interferometer, macroscopic superpositions, etc. As experiments become more sophisticated these things become more relevant and foundational studies are the right way to understand them. Interpretations are a relevant component of this because they can often help to understand the errors in naive intuitions.

I can’t say one interpretation is better than another because they do not lead a better theory with more predictive power. Also, can interpretations be falsified by experimental results?

Even if they don’t they may lead to a new understanding of how to apply the theory domains where it is unclear how to proceed – quantum gravity being one of the main candidates. Newton’s laws are (roughly) equivalent to Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics. Does this mean you shouldn’t have bothered learning the latter two formulations?

I would like to know what others think about the importance of having a good interpretation.

Well, again you are reading a quantum foundations blog so you’re unlikely to get an unbiased opinion here. My advice is to go and read “Speakable and Unspeakable” by John Bell to find out why he said “What could be more practical than a good interpretation?” and see if you agree with him.

Looking back at all the QM courses I took including those in my undergrad I would like to make the following remark, I really really do not care about interpretations. To me teaching and studying of such questions should probably be best done in the philosophy department.

I can’t say one interpretation is better than another because they do not lead a better theory with more predictive power. Also, can interpretations be falsified by experimental results?

I would like to know what others think about the importance of having a good interpretation.