[prmph]

I think the MWI is actually the just-so explanation you claim to avoid.

Is it falsifiable?

If you have a theory that seems unassailable by any logic, that's a good signal it is tautological and not very useful.

[superposeur]

Yes, the MWI is falsifiable. It asserts that objective collapse does not occur, therefore any observation of objective collapse (such as predicted by GRW or Penrose-Diosi) would falsify it.

[prmph]

That's not true falsifiability; its asserting a negative.

I think people resort to MWI because they think it explains everything neatly; it does not!

For example, from my perspective, it does not explain what world I end up in, and if you are saying it's random, you need to come with a fundamental theory of randomness, unless the response is: it just exists, deal with it.