(although the advocate of “two worlds” as the answer, then goes on to say that one world is “stronger” than the other, which is meaningless)
I have advocated that. More precisely, I have said “you can think of one of those branches as stronger”, supposing one is envisioning branches of a tree (strenght here reflects the probability). I am not going to dispute its “meaninglessness”, since it is an analogy. I have provided a more detailed and more technical explanation in another comment which doesn’t speak about “strength” at all.
I wish to stress that I don’t think any metaphorical analogy is going to help one understand quantum mechanics in the important sense of having better and more precise model of the world, and overall I don’t think it is rational for somebody without technical knowledge of the field (it is, not knowing how to make predictions within a given quantum mechanical model) to investigate the interpretation of QM. Starting with the interpretation without knowing the mathematical background creates an illusion of understanding—one would say “quantum mechanics is like a branching tree” or “quantum mechanics is like Bayesian probability” or “quantum mechanics is like stains of ink” or whatever, but one should not aspire to “know” what quantum mechanics is like: one should aspire to be able to calculate the spectrum of a hydrogen atom or the results of the double-slit experiment. Quantitatively, of course.
That said, I admit that my answering in the thread was probably a mistake. One shouldn’t discuss technical topics in metaphors, ever.
(Edit: I mostly agree with the OP that the question “how many worlds” is meaningful and it isn’t a “wrong question”. The problem is that different people may have quite different understanding of what “worlds” refer to and without clearing this up, there is no sense in specifying their number.)
I have advocated that. More precisely, I have said “you can think of one of those branches as stronger”, supposing one is envisioning branches of a tree (strenght here reflects the probability). I am not going to dispute its “meaninglessness”, since it is an analogy. I have provided a more detailed and more technical explanation in another comment which doesn’t speak about “strength” at all.
I wish to stress that I don’t think any metaphorical analogy is going to help one understand quantum mechanics in the important sense of having better and more precise model of the world, and overall I don’t think it is rational for somebody without technical knowledge of the field (it is, not knowing how to make predictions within a given quantum mechanical model) to investigate the interpretation of QM. Starting with the interpretation without knowing the mathematical background creates an illusion of understanding—one would say “quantum mechanics is like a branching tree” or “quantum mechanics is like Bayesian probability” or “quantum mechanics is like stains of ink” or whatever, but one should not aspire to “know” what quantum mechanics is like: one should aspire to be able to calculate the spectrum of a hydrogen atom or the results of the double-slit experiment. Quantitatively, of course.
That said, I admit that my answering in the thread was probably a mistake. One shouldn’t discuss technical topics in metaphors, ever.
(Edit: I mostly agree with the OP that the question “how many worlds” is meaningful and it isn’t a “wrong question”. The problem is that different people may have quite different understanding of what “worlds” refer to and without clearing this up, there is no sense in specifying their number.)