That&#x27;s not quite true.  Measuremnet=entanglement can lead to MWI, but there is at least one tenable alternative to MWI which is variously called QIT (the quantum-information-theoretic view) or the Ithaca Interpretation (&quot;We are correlations without correlata&quot;) or, my favorite (because I invented it) the zero-worlds interpretation.  Even Everett, who invented MWI didn&#x27;t call it that.  He called it the &quot;relative-state&quot; interpretation, which is actually much closer to truth than &quot;many-worlds&quot;.<p>But even though MWI is &quot;correct&quot; in some sense, it has a similar problem with its pedagogy as the more common Copenhagen interpretation (measurement is special, wavefunction collapse is a real physical phenomenon) which causes almost as much confusion: MWI is usually presented as &quot;When you make a measurement, what was previously one universe before the measurement splits into two universes after the measurement.&quot;  That&#x27;s wrong.  Nothing &quot;splits&quot; during a measurement.  There are exactly &quot;as many universes&quot; (I put this in scare quotes because the line between universes is not sharp and so the number of them is not well defined) before a measurement as after.<p>For a more detailed critique of MWI see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rongarret.info&#x2F;2009&#x2F;04&#x2F;on-shadow-photons-and-real-unicorns.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.rongarret.info&#x2F;2009&#x2F;04&#x2F;on-shadow-photons-and-rea...</a>