The problem though is that they don't talk as if it's all about measurement. You don't either. You can't say "it's all about measurement by a sentient being" then also say "that's just the way the world works". You can say "as best we can measure that's the way things work" but nothing more. You can't even say "measurements inherently are limited and THAT's the way it is", because that in and of itself is pretty anthropomorphic, i.e. grandiose. That's like me saying, I've driven up and down my block and see only rabbits, therefore the world is full of nothing but rabbits.
If you base your knowledge on what you can observe and test and you only see rabbits then all you can say definitely exists in the world are rabbits. Of course you also would have to be a rabbit! You are not saying that is all that can exist, you cannot because your knowledge is limited to what you see.
I was implicitly implying that "as best we can measure that's the way things work" as I was taking for granted that science works by “experiments" and “observations" and “measurements," . Our knowledge is always limited by that which we have discovered thus far, something else may be discovered tomorrow.
We are always ready to 'shift the paradigm' if “experiments" and “observations" and “measurements," demand that has to happen, as did happen in the early half of the twentieth century.
I myself are more of a relativist and therefore, yes kkwan, lean emotionally towards relational quantum mechanics, however I leave it to the QM experts to argue out the relative merits amongst themselves. Most of them are pragmatists and simply apply to rules to make accurate predictions about 'how the world works', without worrying too much which interpretation is a correct description of it. Science has tended to separate out the objective and subjective, the observed and the observer and was required to do so in order to advance, however it was QM that showed that the observer affects the observation of that which is observed and is an a relationship with it. We are part of the world we observe.
I also find the Many Worlds Interpretation extravagant and would apply Occam's (Ockham's) razor, however I don't have the last word and therefore I am not in a position to eliminate it!That's better. I agree with what you say, but I disagree when anyone tries to jump from your statements that describe the limited nature of our observations to saying "...and that's the way it is". So we can't say Here's the Theory of Everything and The Big Everything Depends on Us. The QM theorists always seem to want to make that jump. I.e. don't pretend to have the Big Answer.