The Empirical Distinguishability of Quantum Interpretations

Quantum experiments constrain physical descriptions with extraordinary precision, yet several disagreementsabout quantum reality remain unresolved. Their persistence has different causes that requiredifferent responses. This article distinguishes exact agreement of predictions, inadequate statisticalresolution, uncertain background dynamics, restricted access to records, conditional exclusion by no-goresults, and incomplete predictive specification. It develops a comparative framework in which distinguishability belongs to specified formulations and experimental domains rather than to interpretationnames. A critical review connects philosophical work on underdetermination, Pessoa’s account of relationsbetween experiments and interpretations, and recent statistical approaches to quantum tests.Likelihood equality clarifies the limits of differential confirmation, while identification of individualclaims explains how experiments can establish physical structure without determining a complete ontology.Two analytic examples make the distinction practically consequential: a collapse contrast withbounded background uncertainty, and an observer-record model in which inaccessible information limitsdiscrimination. The examples show when additional data help, when calibration or coherent access isrequired, and when no improvement within the stipulated domain can decide the comparison. Theresulting assessment rejects both unrestricted empirical equivalence and claims that particular experimentsuniquely establish a favored interpretation. It specifies the additional predictions, controls, andoutcomes needed to make those claims evidentially meaningful.