I'm not an expert either. I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. But the math behind QM -- at least the parts that matter for this discussion -- is pretty

I'm not an expert either. I'm a computer scientist, not a physicist. But the math behind QM -- at least the parts that matter for this discussion -- is pretty straightforward linear algebra. Really, anyone can learn it. So don't take my word for it, look into it and decide for yourself. You can start here: https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Physics-Princeton-Foundations-Contemporary/dp/069118352X https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Physics-Princeton-Foundati... https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Albert/dp/0674741129/ https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-David-Al... Or, if you don't feel like buying a book: https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf https://flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf Or, if you prefer a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc BTW, it may come as a surprise to learn that I am actually not a big proponent of many-worlds despite recognizing that it is in fact a logical consequence of the math. If so, you may find this interesting too: https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-real-unicorns.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/04/on-shadow-photons-and-re... and a follow-up written ten years later: https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wo...