Physical meaning of quantum interpretations Do interpretations of quantum mechanics have physical meaning? An argument for no would be the fact that no matter the interpretation, one gets the same measurements. They also do not follow logical positivism.
 A: If interpretations actually had different physical consequences, we might go about calling them different 'theories' instead.
For example, one might say that the classical Newtonian model of gravity comes from many non-interfering (straight line) threads of variable length, maybe with complex infinitesimal modern art on them, (in fact, undetectable in any other aspect than what follows) originating in any "unit" mass, each latching on to another "unit" mass, and the tension (which is transmitted to the masses) gets weaker as the inverse square of their length. However, this is just a lot of needless baggage over the simple law:
$$\mathbf{F} = -G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} \hat{\mathbf{e}}_r$$
I'm sure there could be many more ways of looking at it (to start with, maybe the threads come in more interesting shapes), but none of them really make a difference to the actual physics. Whether the threads actually exist is a purely subjective, and perhaps unnecessary, question.
Going back to quantum mechanics, you can talk about worlds splitting (undetectably), particles following invisible waves etc. but none of it adds anything useful to what can be described with the essentials of the theory alone. But when something does, they become (however slightly) different theories, and the question of which is right can then be settled by real world measurements. 
In this regard, note that "measurements" do not mean just readings obtained from high quality instruments alone, but anything that can be detected or observed (or makes any actual difference at all).
A: Different interpretations may have different physical meanings. For the most part they probably act to "translate" the reality into something intuitive for the person, but some may make unique predictions that just aren't tested yet and we cannot yet know if the interpretation is accurate.
A: Do interpretations of quantum mechanics have physical meaning? 
Yes and no. There's not much physical meaning behind the Copenhagen Interpretation, and even less behind the MWI. But these are not the only way to skin Schrödinger's cat. Which I'm sure you know, was proposed to by Erwin to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen Interpretation was, but has since been hijacked by the peddlers of quantum mysticism. There's another emerging interpretation which is like pilot wave theory, but where the "pilot wave" is the only thing that's there. I'm not sure it's got a name, let's say it's the wavefunction is real interpetation. Wavefunction is not some probabilistic thing, it's something that's there. In fact, it's the only thing that's there. See weak measurement work by Jeff Lundeen et al, including his semi-technical explanation:
"With weak measurements, it’s possible to learn something about the wavefunction without completely destroying it. As the measurement becomes very weak, you learn very little about the wavefunction, but leave it largely unchanged. This is the technique that we’ve used in our experiment. We have developed a methodology for measuring the wavefunction directly, by repeating many weak measurements on a group of systems that have been prepared with identical wavefunctions. By repeating the measurements, the knowledge of the wavefunction accumulates to the point where high precision can be restored. So what does this mean? We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory.
"
Also see similar work by Aephraim Steinberg et al, including the physicsworld article In praise of weakness. I gather Aephraim was Jeff's supervisor. 
