I don't think there is anything interesting that we disagree on. I'm just not finding the ontology that I must accept/adopt to do quantum mechanics objectionable despite that it shows little respect for my scale-laden experiences. I find that superpositions, non-local couplings, etc. Do not mix well with coarse grained macrostates, or any sort of experience I have had at scale. This is probably because the entirety of my experience is rationalization after the fact of reality, constructed in my brain for the purpose of maximizing gene replication. But I am trained to deal with paradigm change -- incomensurability, ontology, and epistemology are part and parcel of that endeavour.
In QM, I don't even get the comfort of assuming there is an objective reality filled with entities that enjoy continuous existence in time.
Probably the most persuasive point you make is about non-local couplings. I think that's the strongest evidence for me that macroscopic observations don't bind the microscopic ontology. I probably buy the "everything is relational/consistent histories" story the most.
> There is no comforting continuous existence across time
I think I agree. Using differential equations to model everything makes us think that the entities are really there and being pushed around by laws. But that's the map trying to sneak into the territory imo.
In QM, I don't even get the comfort of assuming there is an objective reality filled with entities that enjoy continuous existence in time.