Leifer
http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Leifer_FQXi2013.pdf
"In the context of the many-worlds interpretation, the Deutsch-Wallace [18, 19, 20, 21] and Zurek [31, 32] derivations of the Born rule are arguments of this type, where the quantum stuff is simply the wavefunction. ... A subjective Bayesian analysis of noncontextuality indicates that it can only be derived within a realist approach to physics. At present, this type of derivation has only been carried out in the many-worlds interpretation, but I expect it can be made to work in other realist approaches to quantum theory, including those yet to be discovered."
Carroll
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...ion-of-quantum-mechanics-is-probably-correct/
"In what sense are there probabilities
at all, if the theory is completely deterministic? These are the
serious issues for EQM, as opposed to the silly one that “there are just too many universes!” The “why those states?” problem has essentially been solved by the notion of
pointer states — quantum states split along lines that are macroscopically robust, which are ultimately delineated by the actual laws of physics (the particles/fields/interactions of the real world). The probability question is trickier, but also (I think) solvable."
Sebens and Carroll
http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1405.7577
"However, there are serious objections to the approaches already explored and many remain unconvinced, so we offer this derivation as a novel alternative. We seek to provide an epistemic - as opposed to a decision-theoretic derivation of the Born rule ... This approach shares formal features with Zurek's (2003a; 2003b; 2005) argument based on the idea of envariance, while offering a clearer explanation of the way in which probabilities arise in a deterministic setting."
Wallace
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0149
"Subsequently, I have presented various expansions and developments on the proof (Wallace 2007,2006c), and Zurek (2003b, 2005) has presented another variant of it. It remains a subject of controversy whether or not these ‘proofs’ indeed prove what they set out to prove."