Quote Originally Posted by mojo
The many worlds interpretation cannot be falsified, either.
I still haven't thrown a cup of boiling tea in my face.

That assertion relies on unmeasurable events being causes, in much the same way that I criticize the pilot wave interpretation.
From what I could tell, there wasn't much between Copenhagen and pilot wave. The difference seems to me that one is an outcome determined by probability, while the other is an outcome determined by initial conditions. The latter seems much more intuitive to me.

I really, really do not like the idea that everything we observe is a roll of the dice. I don't like randomness in nature. It don't believe randomness exists in nature, just apparent randomness that needs better understanding. But this opinion is much more philosophical than scientific. This is why I like pilot wave (or whatever it evolved into), it removes that aspect from QM. That's not to say I understand pilot wave, because I don't, but I like it.