Yeah. But it's also important not to stray too far into instrumentalism, the idea that none of the mathematics of physics needs to correspond to anything in physical reality, it's just an accurate prediction apparatus. Because the only reason a prediction apparatus can be consistently successful is if it is latching on to some elements of reality which follow constant, or at least very slowly changing, laws. There was a course I didn't have the time to attend covering the span of the history of physics from start to now, expounding the idea that while it has never been an entirely correct reflection of reality, it is an ever-evolving dialogue with reality. As we make new discoveries we refine our understanding of the world. Maybe at some point we will understand its true nature - maybe we already do, in the sense that there won't be any serious rewriting of the current mathematics, only the addition of new elements for e.g. new particles. There is a reality to the quantum realm as with everything else, and maybe one of the current interpretations will prove true, or maybe our dance with reality will give rise to new mathematics and new "interpretations". Because while physicists might call them interpretations due to the often sole dependence on the current mathematics, they are in fact hypotheses about the world, which ultimately have to prove true or false. We often forget that the theory of atoms used to just be an "interpretation" stemming from the mathematics of chemistry.