[AgentME]

If you go with the Many-Worlds Interpretation, then trying to remove the randomness is nonsensical: the world just branches (in proportions as described by the Schrodinger equation), people on every branch have experience, and "randomness" is just what branch you find yourself on. The randomness of what branch you find yourself in is just like the randomness of what person you find yourself born as.

All classical theories and interpretations of QM already have indexical uncertainty (the randomness of what person you find yourself born as). MWI avoids adding any new kinds of entities not implied by the Schrodinger equation and effectively explains away quantum randomness by implying that it's the same thing as indexical uncertainty, instead of being a separate kind of randomness.

[tsimionescu]

On the contrary, it is still an open problem to rigorously derive the Born rule probabilities in MWI just from this perspective. Either way, the response will be equivalent to the Born rule: instead of positing that a measurement'outcome is proportional to the amplitude of the state, we posit that the number of branches in which an outcome happens is proportional to the amplitude of that outcome. Not sure why these are fundamentally different.

Also, the MWI idea of branching is no more satisfying or intuitive than the wave function collapse, which at least doesn't require an infinity of universes out of which some are much more probable than others.

Note also that there is only 1 of you in MWI, you just exist with different amplitudes in different states, but when interacting with another object, you become entangled with a single outcome and thus can no longer perceive the other states that other versions of you perceive. This is important, as otherwise physical quantities would not be properly conserved.

[GoblinSlayer]

The Born rule is statistical distribution, and statistics is certainly computable in MWI. It's a matter of converting the wave function into distribution basis, where it will have the Born rule distribution with amplitude close to 1, which means that observations have the Born rule distribution in most cases.

[kanzenryu2]

This is one thing I love about MWI... it has at least some kind of explanation for randomness. For every other interpretation they do some stuff and then choose a random outcome, and I want to ask "and how does that random step happen?"

[l33tman]

But it isn't that simple. There isn't a "proportional split" that can depend on the Schrödinger Equation. This is exactly why QM behaves non-intuitively in the first place - you can't add up probabilities from individual events, you have to add complex numbers and only at the "end" you square them and get probabilities. So it's would be a nice analogue in MWI that the world just splits up and that's why probabilities arise, but it doesn't fit.. :/