How can new interpretations of QM help? There is some current work on interpretations of quantum mechanics. How do you think can interesting results in that area help physics? Can it change quantum physics or make it easier?
Which interpretation has to potential to change practical QM calculations? I mean if MWI turns out the best, then so what? It neither provides more intuition nor makes it calculations easier.
If there are axioms and QM is derived from these, is there any practical value from this mathematical approach? I thought a statement like "it's the only mathematically consistent solution to the axioms", would provide no practical value?
How is knowledge about QFT important to interpretations of QM or is QFT merely a handy mathematical framework?
 A: Interpretations make no difference at all to practical quantum mechanical (QM) calculations. However, they affect a lot how QM is taught and hence how it is understood. Better  interpretations would imply less confusion, faster understanding, more conceptual clarity, and therefore correct understanding for more people.
Axioms can be extremely useful if they are clear and simple, as they allow one to get to the heart of a concept without much ado. (Compare the beauty and simplicity of special relativity with the situation in quantum mechanics.)
Quantum field theory (QFT) is QM applied to fields. Thus it is part of QM, though for technical reasons it is usually treated separately. A knowledge of some QFT is extremely helpful when doing statistical quantum mechanics. Also, the particle concept is far less paradoxical when one keeps in mind that from the point of view of QFT, particles are just localized excitations of the corresponding field.
A: Different viewpoints might highlight different aspects of quantum mechanics. In this way they may provide a starting point to extend quantum mechanics or deepen our understanding of related theories (specially the relationship between classical and quantum mechanics). Let me give you some examples of recent reformulations of quantum mechanics and their importance.
Feynmann path integrals: They provide the reinterpretation of transition probabilities being the 'sum' over all possible paths connecting the initial and the final state. Without this reformulation of qm and the associated Lagrangian-techniques much of QFT would be ridiculous to formulate/calculate.
Geometric quantum mechanics: In this language ones identify all the rays of hilbert space and considers the resulting infinite dimensional manifold (the quantum phase space). By doing this, one can find some 'axioms', which characterize the quantum phase space (these are not axioms in the general meaning; they are more or less properties of the manifold and it is not yet proven, that they define it uniquely). Then one can examine weaker axioms and so extend quantum mechanics in some way. (I think extending a existing theory is the most profound intension behind axiomatization.)
See eg http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9706069
A: The most interesting development in interpretations of QM would be a true resolution of the EPR paradox, which most people either completely fail to understand, or choose to ignore the consequences of. After Bell's theorem, we have to accept that our world is non-local. Yet, what does this mean for relativity? What I hope to see, is a new theory which accounts for the non-locality in a relativistic way (e.g. there has to be the same causal description for all frames, something which is lacking in the current description), that is what Bell hoped for, and I conclude with a quote: 
"During a colloquium organized in the CERN on January 22, 1990, John Bell has been asked whether he thought that relativity and quantum mechanics could be incompatible. John Bell answered:
"No, I can't say that, because I think someone will find one day a way to demonstrate that they are compatible. But I haven't seen it yet. To me, it's very hard to put them together, but I think somebody will put them together, and we'll just see that my imagination was too limited."
A: One could conjecture that two physically significant differences might show up in the near future, between rival interpretations.  a) How quantum noise reacts as people try to scale up quantum computers.  The physical basis of quantum noise is something that might depend on these seemingly philosophical differences.  b) decoherence says that quantum measurement depends on a physical interaction with the environment as a kind of thermodynamic reservoir; rival interpretations differ.  If the rapidity of decoherence and the noisiness of quantum measurements at the mesoscopic scale were studied under different conditions of shielding from the environment, it might, conceivably, allow of deciding between rival views. Most measurement apparatuses rely on the electromagnetic force for coupling the apparatus to the micro-system being measured.  This same force is the main coupling with the environment.  In theory, people such as Bohr have sometimes tried to imagine a measurement apparatus based on gravity as a coupling.  Now, this would be of no use for discriminating between the rival theories, since gravity also couples to the environment equally.  But if a measurement apparatus were based on, say, nuclear spin interactions, then the coupling with the microsystem could possibly be arranged to be much stronger than the coupling to the environment.  As far as I can tell, very few people have concerned themselves with this, so far.  (And the conjectures I throw out here are not worth very much, but are only meant to be provoking.)
