> After skimming the whole thing, I was relieved to see that the argument against Many Worlds was the only one I considered invalid.
You should consider the Bohmian criticisms invalid as well then. Many have argued that de Broglie-Bohm is "many worlds in disguise", so if the criticisms the author levels against Bohmian mechanics are true, then they apply to MWI, but if they don't apply to MWI, then they don't apply to Bohmian mechanics either.
Not because they are the same theory, because they are not ontologically the same, but the formalisms are interchangeable.
Oh yeah. Probably, yeah. I glossed over that one because its criticisms were strangely technical for a theory that, iirc, just rephrases regular quantum theory.
You should consider the Bohmian criticisms invalid as well then. Many have argued that de Broglie-Bohm is "many worlds in disguise", so if the criticisms the author levels against Bohmian mechanics are true, then they apply to MWI, but if they don't apply to MWI, then they don't apply to Bohmian mechanics either.
Not because they are the same theory, because they are not ontologically the same, but the formalisms are interchangeable.