Yes, because that's a very efficacious model of how things actually work. The tree really does fall and makes real sound, the photon really is absorbed by the chlorophyll in the leaf, the synaptic weights in the philosopher who reads Plato really are different afterwards in ways that depended intimately on the content of what they read. There are consequences of all these things: the tree is on the ground with detritivores starting to eat it; the leaf fixes carbon; the philosopher starts talking sagaciously about caves.

Massimo Pigliucci has written a very timely article on a highly related topic. As is often the case, I agree entirely with his perspective.

I'm not sure what crumbs of the metaphysical cake you think are being used. To me it seems more like a notion of ontology is being applied that is not fit for purpose.