A better response is that it's completely in keeping with Ockham's Razor, just in terms of number of rules instead of number of things. For example, in an expa

A better response is that it's completely in keeping with Ockham's Razor, just in terms of number of rules instead of number of things. For example, in an expanding universe we expect lots of galaxies that we see now to end up beyond the observable horizon in the future. Should we assume they stop existing when they cross that horizon (minimizing # of things) or should we avoid adding an extra rule that removes things that cross out of our horizon? Many worlds is just quantum physics without collapse. It replaces a rule with a whole lot of things. It is both simpler and more complex than Copenhagen, depending on how you weigh simplicity.