It seems to me that a poet would be a better choice than a physicist. Most of the platitudes in the link or in your post are no better than those offered by a priest, if a bit fresher. Someone who understands people is a better choice for a speaker than someone who understands equations or machines.
It is not verifiable relative to Copenhagen, but the data that is most simply explained by many worlds is verifiable relative to say Newtonian physics.
Sorry about creating an apparent non sequitur. I removed the MWI part from my comment while you were composing your reply, as it detracted from the intended message.
It seems to me that a poet would be a better choice than a physicist. Most of the platitudes in the link or in your post are no better than those offered by a priest, if a bit fresher. Someone who understands people is a better choice for a speaker than someone who understands equations or machines.
I do mean that.
It is not verifiable relative to Copenhagen, but the data that is most simply explained by many worlds is verifiable relative to say Newtonian physics.
Sorry about creating an apparent non sequitur. I removed the MWI part from my comment while you were composing your reply, as it detracted from the intended message.