> “ You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI.” But you absolutely do not. “Thing plus to

> “ You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI.” But you absolutely do not. “Thing plus totally extraneous, unnecessary additional complicated hypotheses” is not equally as supported as just “thing”. Science says let the simplest, most parsimonious explanation that survives contact with the data prevail. There can be multiple hypotheses that are all congruent with the same experimental observations. That does not make each hypothesis equally valid. Those hypotheses, like anything specifying needless extra collapse physics, that are not as slimmed down as they could be while maintaining congruence with the observations must be rejected in favor of those which make fewer unnecessary assumptions or invoke fewer unnecessary details. The evidence is always for all theories that are congruent with it. That does not at all mean science equally supports all those theories.