Sure! The approach is the informative part, and I should have worded my post better to make that clearer. Something along the lines of "why do you believe that many physicists reject MWI for those reasons?" would have been less confrontational and probably more communicative.

See my reply to MagnetoHydroDynamics.

The orthodox formulation of QM (given in Griffiths and most other modern QM texts) is the following:

• Time evolution of an isolated system is governed by the time-dependent Schroedinger equation (this includes einselection when the system is no longer isolated).

• The Born rule: after a measurement is performed on a system in a given state, the probability of observing a given eigenstate is given by the square modulus of the system's state's projection onto the eigenstate.

Note that there is no mention of collapse. The Born rule is the miracle step in the orthodox approach (and is an open problem in physics), just like it is in any other approach, including the MWI (EY admitted as much, if you want an argument from authority).

The interpretational confusion starts once you try to invent the reasons behind the Born rule. A proper scientific way to address the issue would be to construct a model which explains the Born rule AND makes other testable predictions separate from the orthodox QM. This conjunction is essential. There is no way to simply "dissolve" the question.

I wouldn't call it “orthodox”, but see this:

In addition to these formal axioms one needs a rudimentary interpretation relating the formal part to experiments. The following minimal interpretation seems to be universally accepted.

MI. Upon measuring at times t_l (l=1,...,n) a vector X of observables with commuting components, for a large collection of independent identical (particular) systems closed for times t<t_l, all in the same state rho_0 = lim_{t to t_l from below} rho(t) (one calls such systems identically prepared), the measurement results are statistically consistent with independent realizations of a random vector X with measure as defined in axiom A5.

Note that MI is no longer a formal statement since it neither defines what 'measuring' is, nor what 'measurement results' are and what 'statistically consistent' or 'independent identical system' means. Thus MI has no mathematical meaning - it is not an axiom, but already part of the interpretation of formal quantum mechanics.

[...]

The lack of precision in statement MI is on purpose, since it allows the statement to be agreeable to everyone in its vagueness; different philosophical schools can easily fill it with their own understanding of the terms in a way consistent with the remainder.

[...]

MI is what every interpretation I know of assumes (and has to assume) at least implicitly in order to make contact with experiments. Indeed, all interpretations I know of assume much more, but they differ a lot in what they assume beyond MI.

Everything beyond MI seems to be controversial. In particular, already what constitutes a measurement of X is controversial. (E.g., reading a pointer, different readers may get marginally different results. What is the true pointer reading?)