Reading the comments... one commenter objects to WMI in a way which I would summarize as: "MWI provides identical experimental predictions to CI, which makes it useless, and also MWI provides wrong experimental predictions (unlike CI), which makes it wrong".

The author immediately detects the contradiction:

You know more about it than me. But if it's just equations and you can't empirically test which interpretation is true, then why does the Casimir force make MWI less likely?

Another commenter says that MWI has a greater complexity of thought, and while it is more useful to explore algorithmic possibilities on quantum computers abstractly, CI wins because it is about the real world.

Then the former commenter says (in reaction to the author) that MWI didn't provide useful predictions, and that Casimir force can only be explained by quantum equations and not by classical physics.

(Why exactly is that supposed to be an argument against MWI? No idea. Also, if MWI doesn't provide useful predictions, how can it be useful for studying quantum computers? Does it mean that quantum computers are never going to work in, you know, the real life?)

Finally, yet another commenter explains things from MWI point of view, saying that "observers" must follow the same fundamental physics as rocks.