Thanks.

if you take a look at physicsforums.com and physics.stackexchange and other various blogs, you will quickly realize the vast amount of knowledge he got.

Huh. I'm surprised, and I'll update.

Here is the disccussion I was referring to:

Let's see. He was saying that MWI made no ontological sense. I said something insulting (that's an ugly pattern- I don't do that to very many people on here), then Manfred started explaining MWI pretty well. I jumped back in to explain the Born probabilities as a consequence of it being a Hilbert space.

Then Mitchell correctly identified my explanation with a variant of Barbour's Platonia (I may have missed that on first reading) before launching into something like infinite-set atheism (that countable duplication of a configuration would count as an explanation of the Born probabilities, but that a vector in L^2 with a certain length would not). He also mentions that MWI has issues with relativity and preferred somehow; I admit I'm not qualified to talk about relativistic QM, so I can't counter the objection- but if it wasn't a problem for Feynman, I'm not especially worried.

...I should update again, because he did offer a decent restatement of my view before offering one criticism I understand (and reject as mathematical Ludditism) along with two that I don't have the background for. I think I've probably let my disgust over his philosophical stance on qualia bleed over into my estimation of his physics knowledge. Drat.