Is there any quantum interpretation which isn't "crazy" at all? Is there any quantum interpretation which isn't "crazy" at all? Exponentially many parallel worlds in MWI, superdeterministic conspiracies, and/or nonlocality in hidden variables, idealism and the idea measurements and observations create the outcome in Copenhagen, retrocausality, negative probabilities which can never be observed, etc. .
Is Nature really "stark raving mad"?
 A: Is Nature really "stark raving mad"? No.
Nature is to a large extend rational and intelligible without any craziness.
Quantum physics tends to generate a sense of mystery,

*

*perhaps for historical reasons,

*perhaps to generate the interest of laymen in physics (''quantum teleportation'' simply sounds much more impressive than ''copying the state of a photon''),

*perhaps because emphasis in layman accounts of quantum mechanics is put on thought experiments rather than real experiments,

*perhaps because it is too often poorly explained.

But there is nothing mysterious about quantum mechanics if it is understood in the way it is actually practiced - rather than in the way it is customarily talked about.
See the entries ''Quantum mechanics without mysteries'' and ''Foundations independent of measurements'' of Chapter A4: ''The interpretation of quantum mechanics'' of my theoretical physics FAQ at
http://arnold-neumaier.at/physfaq/physics-faq.html
A: There is one interpretation that has the roots of the right answer and that is the Consistent Histories interpretation.  As explained this is a generalization of the Copenhagen Interpretation and removes what many people refer to as the "measurement problem" and replaces the classical notion of measurement, where a classical "apparatus" causes a wave function collapse of a quantum system, with a process called "decoherence".
In this interpretation the wave function never "collapses", however certain states, called "pointer states", which is an allusion to the idea of a needle of a gauge pointing to a particular value, begin to be preferred by the system.  These pointer states are analogous to classical states (although they are arguably not equivalent in order to remain consistent with the notion that classical states are effectively a pure fiction in quantum mechanics).
The key conceptual leap is to understand the classical "apparatus" (e.g. measuring device) is really another quantum system where there is sufficient convolution (for lack of a better word) with the environment so it has become more entangled with the environment and has "decohered more" relative to the nearly pure quantum system that is to be "observed".
One of the key concepts to explore and understand further in this context is that of "separability" which is a measure of entanglement between states, particularly "pure states" (or nearly pure mixed states) which are maximally entangled internally but are independent (separable) of other pure states.  
This interpretative approach is arguably the most correct, and also lends itself to the idea of mutual exclusive outcomes, where an outcome of an observation must be consistent and definite with respect to a particular pointer position, meaning the pointer of a compass can point north OR east but not north AND east when its observed with respect to the system, although prior to observation, its probability amplitude can evolve in an entangled state where there is a complex phase of north superposed with east...this miracle is achieved mathematically by using complex numbers and their conjugates and enforcing conditions of orthogonality (or more specifically orthonormality) and unitarity.
A: No. The main problem with qantum mechanics is that it predicts different probabilities of the same events for different observers.
So there can be essentially only two solutions to the problem, both having philosophical disadvantages.


*

*Postulate that there is only one true observer.

*Postulate that once the observers measure inconsistent results, the universe splits so that the both observe different universes of their own.


From the philosophical point of view the first idea renders scientific method potentially incorrect depending whether a scientist reporting a measurement is that distinguished observer (or in a thermodynamic contact with him), or not. Since most observers reside on Earth and in thermodynamic contact with each other, this did not bring much problems so far. But in a setting like in Wigner's friend paradox this would lead to a trouble.
The second idea renders scientific method inapplicable because if scientists split into parallel universes after a measurement, they would be unable to exchange results.
A: In http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.4630 (see references to my peer-reviewed articles there), I give a tentative positive answer to the following question: "Is it possible to offer a ”no drama” quantum theory? Something as simple (in principle) as classical electrodynamics - a local realistic theory described by a system of partial differential equations in 3+1 dimensions, but reproducing unitary evolution of quantum theory in the configuration space?"
