collapse doesn't conserve energy
This is quite misleading. Since collapse is experimentally compatible with "shut up and calculate", which is the minimal non-interpretation of QM, and it describes our world, where energy is mostly conserved, energy is also conserved in the collapse-based interpretations.
You can think of it this way: in order for the math for energy conservation to work out, we need those extra worlds. If you remove them, the math doesn't work out.
That's wrong, as far as I understand. The math works out perfectly. Objective collapse models have other issues (EPR-related), but conservation of energy is not one of them.
you can in fact show that energy isn't conserved
Links? I suspect that whatever you mean by energy conservation here is not the standard definition.
Since [non-ontological] collapse is experimentally compatible with "shut up and calculate", which is the minimal non-interpretation of QM...
... and is isomorphic to MWI...
This is quite misleading.
Doesn't seem like it. You have an initial state which is some ensemble of energy eigenstates. You do measurements, and thereby lose some of them. Looks like energy went somewhere to me. Of course under non-ontological collapse you can say 'we're isomorphic to QM! Without interpretation!' but when you come across a statement 'we're conserving this ...
This is a thread where people can ask questions that they would ordinarily feel embarrassed for not knowing the answer to. The previous thread is at close to 500 comments.