''Do you have any proof of these other worlds in the many worlds interpretation?''
I didn't say there was proof, I simply gave a list of various interpretation, many worlds being one interpretation. I didn't say that I was arguing for MW, or any other interpretation. Penrose, for example, proposes objective wave collapse through the action of gravity....which makes sense on one level because gravity does shape large scale structures, stars, galaxies, planets, orbits, etc.
The MW interpretation does appear to be gaining ground;
''Although several versions of many-worlds have been proposed since
Hugh Everett's original work,
[4] they all contain one key idea: the equations of physics that model the time evolution of systems
without embedded observers are sufficient for modelling systems which
do contain observers; in particular there is no observation-triggered
wave function collapse which the
Copenhagen interpretation proposes. Provided the theory is
linear with respect to the wavefunction, the exact form of the
quantum dynamics modelled, be it the non-relativistic
Schrödinger equation,
relativistic quantum field theory or some form of
quantum gravity or
string theory, does not alter the validity of MWI since MWI is a
metatheory applicable to all linear
quantum theories, and there is no experimental evidence for any non-linearity of the wavefunction in physics.
[15][16] MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or
multiverse in this context) is composed of a
quantum superposition of very many, possibly even
non-denumerably infinitely[2] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.
[7]''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
