What has been written so far on the theme?
The interpretation of QM via act and potency is most promising so far. You can check the book: Aristotle's revenge by Edward Feser. It is a good book that defends Aristotelian notions of act and potency, but it correctly shows that they are necessary presuppositions for modern science.
Pretty much, QM is a viewpoint of reality where you look almost everything as being in potency, and that notion is closely related to notion of the wave function. On the other hand, the general theory of relativity (via Minkowski spaces) is a viewpoint of reality where you look at everything as an actual being (because spacetime is a manifold and everything already exists actually). As change is a transition from being in potency to being in act, that is the reason why for example, the general theory of relativity is not properly disposed to seek for causes of things (because there is no change from potency to act if everything is in act as it is in general theory of relativity). Much more can be said...check out the book which I recommended.
About many world interpretations Feser (page 320-321) writes the following:
On the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, observation of the cat famously leads to a splitting of the world into parallel and equally real branches, in one of which the particle has decayed and the cat is observed to be dead and in the other of which the particle has not decayed and the cat is observed to be alive. And the same is true for every other superposition, on this interpretation. Each possible outcome turns out to be equally real, so that there are parallel worlds in which the Allies lost World War II, parallel worlds in which Einstein was a bus driver rather than a physicist, and so on. Or rather, there is just one reality, a multi verse governed by a universal wave function, where the myriad parallel worlds reflect the various possible outcomes represented by the wave function.
Naturally, a common objection to this view is that it is difficult to see how it could be empirically tested, since our branch of the purported multiverse is the only one to which we have access. Another objection is that no one would take such a bizarre view seriously except on the supposition that the nature of physical reality can be read off from the mathematics of the universal wave function. But as I have argued, it is simply a basic metaphysical error to identify the physical world with what a mathematical representation of it can capture. It is also still not clear even on the "many worlds" interpretation whether measurements alone lead to a branching of the universe, or if any interaction does so - and if so, why (Kosso 1998, p. 169). A fourth problem is that if all possible outcomes are equally real, then there is no sense to be made of the probabilities that quantum mechanics assigns to the outcomes - every outcome has the same probability, namely 1 (Koons 2018c; Putnam 2012a). This reflects what the Aristotelian must regard as a deeper problem with the "many worlds" interpretation, which is that it is essentially a variation on Parmenidean monism, in which the world is regarding as a single substance and there are no unactualized potentialities.
On Bohm's interpretation (page 321.):
Then there is Bohm's "pilot wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics, which deals with wave-particle duality by positing two things, particles and waves (rather than one thing that exhibits properties of both), with waves guiding or "piloting" particles. As Koons points out, Bohm's position, like the many worlds interpretation, amounts to a kind of monism insofar as it treats the universe as a single fundamental substance, of which particles are passive components rather than having active causal powers of their own. (Koons unpublished; cf. Lewis 2016, pp. 169-70 on the holistic character ofBohmian mechanics.) Interpreted in a deterministic way, Bohm's position also has difficulty accounting for the probabilities described by quantum mechanics (Koons 2018c, p. 93).
Yes, there is some interesting things being written in this direction. I would recommend Dr. Wolfgang Smith as a reference, but there is some mistakes and clarification that are needed in this approach.
The first thing is an ontological distinction between the physical world and our world, and the distinction between the mathematical description and the described reality. Professor Smith make clear where Heinsenberg ideas is going in a right direction or if it is misleading. Maybe the best book to begin is "The Quantum Enigma".