Ah, again. See, it matters to me not in the least whether it's A or B or something else, if they predict all the same things. (As far as I can tell, they predict nothing of consequence, so they are not interesting at all.) As for Barbour, his models have nothing testable in them, as far I know (replace time with "change"? so?), which is a big negative against them. Whether the "block universe" notion is a good one still remains to be seen, so far it is not instrumentally useful. I do not understand EY's fascination with Barbour. At least MWI, when taken literally, has a chance of being falsifiable.