''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-denumerablyinfinitely[2] many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds.[7]''
