The everything-is-a-quantum-wave interpretation of quantum physics

AFAICT he's arguing that the Many world's interpretation should be renamed to the "Everything-Is-A-Quantum-Wave" interpretation. I've heard people suggest "Universal wave function" interpretation, which IMO is better than either.

None of the interpretations I heard of addresses a simple question: why don&#x27;t we see hibbles and glorphs? For the context, please refer to an old article by Matthew Cook: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paradise.caltech.edu&#x2F;~cook&#x2F;Workshop&#x2F;Physics&#x2F;QMQuestion.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paradise.caltech.edu&#x2F;~cook&#x2F;Workshop&#x2F;Physics&#x2F;QMQue...</a>

I like to call it the Universal Wavefunction, or Everettian theory. The splitting into many worlds is just a side effect.<p>That said, any discussion of this theory should mention the rather puzzling issue that gravitation is nonlinear, and thus it would be impossible for there to be a superposition of worlds in each of which general relativity works as observed.

I didn&#x27;t study physics in university, so please forgive this naïve question. Would an appropriate interpretation of quantum physics simply be that we don&#x27;t <i>have</i> an interpretation of quantum physics? We have mathematical equations and observations that confirm the math, but it seems that we don&#x27;t have observations that give credibility to one interpretation over the others. Instead of speculating, can&#x27;t we just agree that we don&#x27;t know?<p>I&#x27;m not suggesting that we <i>should</i> do that -- I suspect that there&#x27;s a lot that I&#x27;m missing. But I guess I don&#x27;t understand why these speculative interpretations are so alluring if we can&#x27;t confirm or invalidate them through experiments.

For the experts here. As far as I know Quantum Theory is described by a linear differential equation. How can it describe observed non linearity?<p>The point was made by Sabine Hossenfelder