Verificationism isn’t dead yet
I recently finished a few books to get the basic concepts of quantum mechanics down:
Quantum by Manjit Kumar
A good narrative history of quantum theory starting at the double slit experiment and running through the second World War for its bulk (with a small extension at the end to more modern times to accommodate Bell).
The book is sizeable but serves as a good jumping-on point. Heavier than beach reading, substantially lighter than academic material. Read this for context.
Thirty Years that Shook Physics by George Gamow
Gamow was an active physicist through the tail end of that 1900-1930 window, which probably explains why he was shortlisted; reviewers pegged him as a breezy writer who snuck in drawings and an entire play written by physics students.
The side content reads like it's there to popularize physics for readers who wouldn't otherwise go near the deep end, while the actual prose zeroes in on the major personalities.
Mathematical Foundations and Quantum Mechanics Essentials - Coursera
I have an annual Coursera Plus membership, so there was little loss other than time to do this one. This Coursera course lasts three weeks and is part of the larger The Complete Quantum Computing Course for Beginners Specialization.
The first week is a bare-bones intro, while week 2 covers a lot of the mathematical lift necessary to get into quantum computing. I found that the linear algebra work was of a more elementary level than even a proper Coursera or Khan Academy track for linear algebra. All the better, I suppose, as long as the quantum computing portion of the rest of the specialization doesn't ask for more math. Though, if I came into this with absolutely zero linear algebra prep, this would have been a substantially more annoying course.
Finally, the third week introduces quantum physics concepts, such as superposition, interference, entanglement, states, and braket notation. It's a very light intro, and the Kumar text clears everything but the intro to braket notation.
Where I'm at
Knowing substantially more context today than I did a month ago, I've softened my position. Right now, I'm aligning a little more toward the standard Copenhagen Interpretation. If observations don't really align with a received narrative, I don't think that creates an impetus to either hurry up with a satisfactory grand theory or push back on otherwise accurate observations.
If experiments detect the probable existence of some particle that would resolve the mathematics of several observations, then that's entirely a satisfactory scenario to theorize its existence.
Philosophical conceptions
Philosophically, I've always aligned somewhere between pragmatism and logical positivism. Pragmatism was dead until Rorty and Putnam brought it back between 1979 and the early 90s. I'm by no means a Rortian; I think all the criticisms of what Rorty did to pragmatism are completely valid. I think convenience of belief still requires some observable basis or alignment in reality.
Logical positivism has been claimed as dead since the 1950s and I suppose the workable pieces have been claimed for the current dominant empirical philosophical paradigm. I'm not so sure that verificationism needs to be dead and buried, though. Making universal statements of fact likely need some bracketing. In my field, we have systems of record and observable reality with support. It's more valuable to make statements that can be verified over statements that can be checked for falsity.
Copenhagen does seem to run in this direction, probably because the Vienna Circle and the quantum theorists had semi-regular lines of contact.