Ok, well now you've basically argued that falsification in general is impossible, for anything

English comprehension fail, no I didn't. I said you can't prove other worlds exist or not if you can't access anything other than this universe's information, which is true. Because if you can't access anything other than this universe's information there's no experiment to run on information about other worlds. This stems from not being able to observe those worlds by which to gather information about them, which is quite important to the scientific method.

The parameters of the emitted radiation - particle or wave type, energy level, charge, spin, colour, direction of travel, everything - would be different for every collapse

No they wouldn't, the laws of physics still apply

You think "the laws of physics" state there's only one outcome for every trait of a radio wave or excited particle? Because that's what your statement here means, since you're disagreeing with me. We're talking about how everything is a cloud of possibilities and you want to tell me now that every trait and path is predestined? That's just wrong.

“objective” in “objective collapse” at face value

And why shouldn't I?

Because reality is not objective, duh. Quite literally what we've been talking about this whole time.

No experiment has been performed that has detected this radiation being emitted, but if it had, it still wouldn’t have falsified MWI.

Yes, but by your standard, nothing can ever be falsified.

Still as wrong when you said it here as at the start.

I’m quite sure there’s no experiment

You asserting it doesn't make it true.

I was being polite. Show me the experiment, and this time don't just link any old shit in the hope I won't read or understand it. Despite my words, I know what I know, and you don't get to condescend to me without proving me wrong. Which you haven't done yet, due to the aforementioned failures in your English comprehension.

From within each world: Observers see exactly what CSL predicts - apparent spontaneous wave function collapse accompanied by radiation emission (or not, in this case). The collapse looks completely real and objective to the observers, and there is no experimental way to show otherwise.

Except there is no radiation emission unless the wave-function objectively collapses. That's the point.

There's no radiation emission at all that we've observed, but even if there were, you can't just demonstrate something happening around the same time and call it causality. You have to the show the radiation didn't come from another source, and anyone who disagrees with your conclusions has to show it did, and then we all get together and pick it all apart in peer review until we've decided whose argument is the best-supported.

Which is like now, but you're not showing any evidence of these "objective experiments" we've been running that supposedly prove anything about or have access to information from outside our universe.

Both frameworks ultimately make identical (observable) predictions from within each world

No, they don't. One predicts spontaneous radiation release, and one doesn't.

Explain how you plan to show that the spontaneous radiation release was not a result of being entangled with the thing you're observing. Your whole argument rests on information from this world, I'm blown away you don't see the fault in it.

you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI’s other worlds don’t actually exist, then it’d be falsifiable.

literally asking to prove a negative.

Yeah you're right, let me rephrase: if you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI’s other worlds DO actually exist, then it’d be falsifiable.

There. Now go ahead and prove that other worlds exist.

You spent a lot of words to say you don't understand that we don't live in an objective universe, or what falsifiability really is. I'm just willing to allow that I might be wrong even when I'm not, and you aren't because you're so certain you're right you can't see what you're actually saying.

I'm done with this conversation now; I hope you go do some reading on the scientific method to address these shortcomings, because I am positive you're not going to do the one thing you need to (which, again, is just to show the objective experiments you're talking about, rather than condescending to and insulting me).