1 Copenhagen is dead not because it was falsified by some experiment, but because it is, mathematically speaking, self-inconsistent. The show stopper for CI is “what is a measurement device”? When devices were huge, it was silently ignored. However, now we are able work with quantum computers, where “measurement devices” are only few atoms large. So it raises unavoidable questions like ‘why these 10 atoms are measurement device while these 10 are not?” or “why the same media (glass, mirror) is not a measurement device for visible light but measures the gamma rays?”. Ultimately, CI fails to provide M(x) – a function, which for every system x returns 0 or 1 if it is a measurement device or not.
2 I adhere to Max Tegmark’s MUH. Strictly speaking, his program is not 100% physics, but something with a high percentage of philosophy, but it is very constructive and it also gives some testable predictions – for example, that in TOE there will be no ‘non-physical axioms’ – just equations. So it will be purely mathematical system. For that reason I don’t like Bohmian Mechanics – because it contains some unavoidable blah-blah-blah stuff.