What difference does it make when the same (corroborated) predicted observations are embedded in two radically different physical frameworks? The ‘not-much-difference’ or even ‘no-difference-at-all’ answers have often been endorsed. But such positions, I argue, greatly underestimate the weight of the ‘other of predictions’ (of all that differs from predictions within the framework) on what is taken as physically relevant, acceptable, and established. As a revealing case study, my argument exploits the contrast between two presently alive, predictively equivalent theoretical frameworks in quantum mechanics: the ‘standard’ (or ‘normal’) quantum physics (NQP) learned by students for over seventy years; and an alternative physics first introduced by David Bohm in 1952 and subsequently developed by others (BQP). Although NQP and BQP predict the same observations, they are otherwise incompatible. To grasp the nature and impacts of the differences between frameworks like NQP and BQP, I articulate a counterfactual scenario in which the chronological and social situations of NQP and BQP are permuted. Starting from the virtual initial condition of a community of physicists exclusively educated in the BQP framework and immersed in it throughout their professional lives, I attempt to come close to a perception of ‘what it would be like to be Bohmians’ and to an experience of the gestalt switch involved when shifting to ‘what it is like to be NQPians’. This helps us appreciate how the ‘same’ predictions can look different. The same predicted numbers receive contradictory physical meanings; the same mathematical predictive algorithm is assessed in antagonistic ways.