RE: [Fabric-of-reality: www.scientific-philosophy.org]
> The many worlds interpretation fails this test, because it containsUnless the laws of physics uniquely specify our universe, additional
> unspecified, and arbitrary make-believe, and it is therefore pseudo-
postulates are required to prevent them automatically specifying a
multiverse. Hence the MWI appears more parsimonious at our existing level of
knowledge. (Paraphrased from Max Tegmark in "New Scientist").
> locations across all realities. MWI gets to delete all particles from darkMWI does not delete particles: MWI assumes the wave function is
> areas by asserting “and magic happens” – which is no better than collapse.
> Both hypotheses (MWI and Collapse) fail to account for the lack of particles
> in dark areas, other than by asserting “magic”.
ontologically real: particles are observed where there is constructive
interference, none where the interfer. is destructive.
Read here why MWI is currently the best theory for QM:
(many posts, much reading, but, nobody said the matter is trivial)
Here you have the final MWI post (which may not make sense if you've
skipped the ones listed in the summary post above):
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna