The "measurement problem" is really a Copenhagen-specific thing -- "measurement" is the fundamental and identifying mechanism of the interpretation, and it's pr

The "measurement problem" is really a Copenhagen-specific thing -- "measurement" is the fundamental and identifying mechanism of the interpretation, and it's problematic. And In the Copenhagen interpretation the Born Rule is inextricably tied to measurement outcomes. I guess you could say that MWI removes the wishy-nastiness around what constitutes measurement, when it happens etc, and that could constitute "solving the problem", but I think - Some of "the problem" has just been moved outside those borders. (And fine -- the MWI doesn't need to solve every problem to be an improvement. And I do think it's an improvement.) - The Born Rule is weirder* in the MWI. In Copenhagen it's axiomatic: We explicitly roll the dice, a nondeterministic outcome happens, that's the mechanism. In MWI it's an afterthought: The wavefunction evolves deterministically, and oh-by-the-way you should weight the likelihood of finding yourself here or there by the squared amplitude. Maybe that's unfair though?