I can sympathize the side claiming that the differentiation between interpretative probability and physical probability can be a huge thing, so that "wavefunction is a real physical object" makes a lot sense. Yes, finding the inconsistency from interpretative model is great, but insisting that the alternative model is itself a physical reality is another issue.
All probabilitic objects derive its existential validity from the identity of indiscernible. We employ probabilistic tools from the belief that what we observe in quantum level are indeed identicals. However, the indiscernibility isn't equal to identity, even if the tools based on the assumption succeed in many aspects of how the supposed identities interact. We would never know each fundamental physical unit is truly identical unless we uncover the fundamental totality of quantum particles. Before we grasp the totality of the physical fundamentals, no probability is physical yet. And I think humanity would never know it. There's a limit in our knowledge and the true identity is beyond our reach.
All probabilitic objects derive its existential validity from the identity of indiscernible. We employ probabilistic tools from the belief that what we observe in quantum level are indeed identicals. However, the indiscernibility isn't equal to identity, even if the tools based on the assumption succeed in many aspects of how the supposed identities interact. We would never know each fundamental physical unit is truly identical unless we uncover the fundamental totality of quantum particles. Before we grasp the totality of the physical fundamentals, no probability is physical yet. And I think humanity would never know it. There's a limit in our knowledge and the true identity is beyond our reach.