I am a layperson interested generally in quantum mechanics, with a reasonable grasp of the formalism (as reasonable as any layperson, at least). I do not deal with physicists generally, and so it is hard to gage how accepted various models and interpretations are. In particular, I was for a long time told and later taught (both by teachers and textbooks) that quantum mechanics was fundamentally probabilistic, a state of affairs which seemed to me to be extremely objectionable; I was therefore rather surprised when I learned of an apparently simpler theoretical model which was deterministic and purportedly consistent with experimental results. Totally ignoring the existence of such a model (or more frequently mentioning it as a curious aside) seems like a very strange thing for educators to do, and the public generally appears to have developed an incredibly inaccurate conception of MWI. My questions generally are, how accepted is many minds/many worlds as an interpretation in the scientific community, and how many physicists believe respectively that collapse (as a fundamental process) does occur, that collapse might occur, and that collapse probably doesn't occur? When wavefunction collapse is invokved in the literature, does it generally refer to an approximation to decoherence or to a fundamental principle? Among physicists who believe collapse occurs as a fundamental process, what motivates this belief? Is it accepted that if many worlds were in fact to exist, decoherence would cause their interaction to be non-observable? Is it accepted that if there were no collapse there would be many worlds? Is there some feature of collapse besides computational simplicity which balances out its additional complexity? Is the apparent "weighting" of possible observers considered objectionable? I do not mean to frame any of these questions as accusations, I am merely curious as to why collapse models are presented so much more frequently to laypeople and students. You could certainly argue it doesn't really matter, but it has a significant effect on the way some concepts are presented. I also do not understand why the absence of discriminating evidence would support explicit collapse instead of refuting it as the more complex model (although again I do not mean to suggest there is no good reason, just that I do not know it; I do not even know if this is the case outside of my perhaps not entirely representative experience). Thanks.