I have been learning a lot about quantum mechanics, especially interpretations and foundations. There is a lot more to learn, but here is my working argument for/explanation of the many-worlds interpretation. To me, it is clearly the most reasonable interpretation. The Copenhagan interpretation is ill-defined it’s propagation is due to Luddism.Tell me what you think.
Quarks are waves. They do not have definite properties. The properties are given by a wave function which tells you the probability of each value of the property.
Entanglement tells us how the properties of two (or several) quarks interact and become related [I need to learn more about the laws this interaction]. After they interact, they (their properties) are still waves, just interfering with each other. They do not collapse (in the Copenhagen interpretation, they just combine into something that we can collapse later). This is experimentally verifiable. In fact, it’s the basis for quantum computation.
You are made of quarks, all interacting and related. If you are a reductionist and believe no additional physical laws emerge when many quarks interact as oppose to several (if you believe in induction, I suppose), then you must conclude you are simply a wave function yourself. To say otherwise, you would need to introduce a new physical law/assumption.
If you maintain a classical view and consider yourself definite rather than probabilistic, there are many copies of slightly different versions of you. If you think more holistically, the concept which constitutes you is a collection of sets properties of the wave function which you would call you
you. In this case there is no “split”, all parts of the wave function exist, and conceptions of you diverge continuously as macroscopic properties vary in different parts.
OK, well how do we explain what we experience? This is the measurement problem but from a different direction than that of the Copenhagen interpretation. How do we derive Born’s rule (that the probability of a measurement is given by the magnitude of the wave function)? Why does our experience seem so definite (and not… wavy?), and why does it evolve according to the probability density described by a wave we become entangled with?
The second is well explained by considering the width of parts of the universal wave function. The classical translation of width is the number of “copies” of reality with some given properties. As the wave function evolves and things entangle, “we” move to a place in it randomly, and are thus more likely to end up in a part with greater width. (This requires some further development)
Then, why don’t we feel wavy? Maybe the theory of consistent theories explains this (I don’t know much about it. I need to learn more). Can you describe causal chains as definite paths through this wave function? It certainly seems true for our consciousness. Perhaps this is true in a sense for an electron’s experience of itself, however you might try to define it. This is a panpsychic interpretation (in general I don’t favor this).
This last part is especially vague and underdeveloped. It’s on the edge of my thinking, and it starts to spiral outward rapidly.