Copenhagen - Well, to be honest, it is the only interpretation of the given that is close of being a scientific theory a la Popper . But , and again IMHO it has a fatal flaw: the concept of observation. Observation requires a observer, that by definition has to be outside of the system. That ( don't flame on this ) is the functional equivalent of acepting that something out of the system we know as universe is needed to , using the Hawkins wording, to colapse the wave function of our Universe to our current state ... a real Deus ex machina Many Worlds - the lazy way out... if you can't decide which one you are in, why not take them all home ? Not saying that it is not a possibility, but , let's be honest, besides being a intelectual lazy way out of the debate, it is not testable . Hidden Variables - Another lazy way out, but this one is more honest. It resumes to think that you are not seeing the whole picture or simply only observing a special case ( say, like Newton physics is actually a special case of Einstein Relativity with low speeds and acelerations ) Don't Think, Calculate - Well, this position reminds me what Aristotle said once about why the moon has phases and ecplises ( some years before other thinker had been executed because he had explained both of them by assuming that the Sun and the moon were actual physical bodies, so he was not in the mood of repeating the feat ) : the reason why the moon has phases and eclipses is because it is in it's nature to have phases and eclipses. In other words, it is not a explanation, not a interpretation ... it is simply ad hoc thinking ( it works so why bother ... ) Well, I'm not entirely satisfied with any of them, but I would probably go with the hidden variables interpretation ... not necessarily by the no dice Einstein interpretation, but something from where the currently know QM is simply a special case.