What you describe with respect to many worlds sounds more like possible worlds semantics. Someone not committed to the view might treat it as a formalism with n

What you describe with respect to many worlds sounds more like possible worlds semantics. Someone not committed to the view might treat it as a formalism with no metaphysical baggage, but I don't think that is what the endorsors of many worlds believe. Carroll certainly believes in a universal wave function and actual many worlds. And there is definitely a difference between RQM: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#CompOtheInte https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/#CompOtheIn... I am sympathetic to the idea that no one interpretation is 100% correct and that we shouldn't be deeply attached to any of them. Each may have its usefulness in different contexts. Independent of that, some interpretations more accurately describe the quantum world than others, surely.