While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the doub

While what you say makes sense superficially, I think you are not considering the possibility that the worlds interact with each other. Notice that in the double-slit experiment, the wave function at different places interacts with itself so as to lower the probability of a photon or electron arriving at a place where it was likelier to arrive with just one slit open. Informally speaking, that could be seen as an example of different "worlds" (i.e. different places where the photon could be observed to exist) interacting with each other locally so as to effectively lower the probability of observing the photon arriving at some place where it would be likelier to arrive had the different worlds not have interacted with each other. Taking the analogy a bit too far, this seems like if two different worlds interfere with each other so as to cancel each other out. Again, the photon/electron that was likely to arrive at some place, will not likely arrive anymore, and this is purely due to the the wave function interfering with itself. Wouldn't that mean that there is the possibility that the observed correlations in Bell's theorem could be the result of this phenomenon and not necessarily mean that there is non-local behavior? That is, couldn't the observed correlations be the result of the different worlds interfering with each other locally, e.g. when the light cones of the different measurements intersect each other, so that some worlds cancel each other out and we don't get to observe them, leading to the correlations that we do indeed observe? Bell's theorem, as far as I understand, only takes into account what we can observe, but could be falsified if there are "worlds" that we cannot observe, i.e. that are temporally created but stop existing when they cancel each other out by local interactions. Although, admittedly, I could be completely wrong because I don't understand enough of this to be sure of what I'm saying :)