I think there's evidence for MWI and it's of the same character as evidence against geocentrism, you just question it, because evidence isn't airtight and geocentric prejudice is compelling because you reject Copernican principle and don't believe in relativity. But evidence against geocentrism isn't airtight either and can be questioned, and geocentrism can be hypothesized and is internally consistent, so why not, especially if you reject Copernican principle.
One branch interpretations are based on geocentric prejudice that the observer's state isn't changed much by observation (because observer doesn't feel change), and when the observer's state doesn't change much, we get geocentrism. But mathematics of quantum physics shows otherwise: the observer's state suffers decoherence and splits into macroscopic superposition, which is a big change and thus debunks assumption of unchanged observer's state. When observer's state changes significantly, observation becomes subject to relativity effect just like in case of spinning Earth.
>The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.
And what it means when there's no such evidence?
>The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view.
But then tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view. What you say doesn't match what you do.
>If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you.
I argue that Born rule is an observed phenomenon, and all observed phenomena are purely quantitative physical processes computable from Schrödinger equation, Born rule is the same, otherwise quantum physics wouldn't predict observation of Born rule.
Formally you might need measurement, but the trick is to convert the given problem into a problem of certainty, then measurement is trivial, and prediction is completely calculated from Schrödinger equation. Coincidentally Born rule is such a certain fact, so it doesn't matter if you measure it or not, measurement doesn't do much to certain facts, it's sufficient if you only calculate this certain fact and leave it as is without measuring it.
One branch interpretations are based on geocentric prejudice that the observer's state isn't changed much by observation (because observer doesn't feel change), and when the observer's state doesn't change much, we get geocentrism. But mathematics of quantum physics shows otherwise: the observer's state suffers decoherence and splits into macroscopic superposition, which is a big change and thus debunks assumption of unchanged observer's state. When observer's state changes significantly, observation becomes subject to relativity effect just like in case of spinning Earth.
>The only way there could be evidence for it is if it's wrong.
And what it means when there's no such evidence?
>The mortal's-eye view is fundamentally incompatible with the god's-eye view.
But then tracing must be fundamentally unable to extract mortal's-eye view from god's-eye view. What you say doesn't match what you do.
>If you want to argue that the Born rule is not "an observed phenomenon" then I don't know what to tell you.
I argue that Born rule is an observed phenomenon, and all observed phenomena are purely quantitative physical processes computable from Schrödinger equation, Born rule is the same, otherwise quantum physics wouldn't predict observation of Born rule.
Formally you might need measurement, but the trick is to convert the given problem into a problem of certainty, then measurement is trivial, and prediction is completely calculated from Schrödinger equation. Coincidentally Born rule is such a certain fact, so it doesn't matter if you measure it or not, measurement doesn't do much to certain facts, it's sufficient if you only calculate this certain fact and leave it as is without measuring it.