Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics From my layman's perspective, it feels like the many worlds interpretation is invoked out of the inability to explain why one observation occurs out of many possibilities. Given no explanation why one particular observation occurs out of many, we say all events took place... so there's no need to explain why 1 particular event happened anymore.
To me, it looks like this doesn't fix anything, just sweeps it under the rug... there's still the question "why did I observe this particular event when I could have observed multiple others"... ie: "why am I in this world instead of another" So the need to explain the "specificity" of our experience is still there. If there are multiple versions of me, the question still exists, "why am I this version?". 
Is my impression false? Is there more to the many-worlds interpretation than I'm thinking?
 A: Before the MWI, there only used to be wave-function collapse models, which had a problem in the sense that they would require a non-unitary measurement operator in order to make the wave-function collapse into a particular eigenstate. However, there was a problem, that is, time evolution is determined by unitary operator, and no combination of unitary operators can lead to a the non-unitary measurement operator. MWI had a means to tackle this problem by suggesting that wave-function collapse doesn't take place, rather reality is presented as a branched tree with all possible outcomes realized. Thus the problem is well-motivated, although it's solution may be difficult to accept or test. The quantum to classical transition in this model is realized by utilizing decoherence approaches.
A: Your impression is false. 
For your defense, the name "Many World Interpretation" is misleading. It seems to means the theory is "parallel worlds" explaining something (here quantum randomness).
Actually, here the theory is quantum mechanics, that explains outcomes of countless experiments. Everett has shown that "Collapse of wavefunction" was unnecessary. "Parallel worlds" are a consequence of this theory, not its premise. 
A: 
"why am I in this world instead of another"

The answer is that you are in all of them, along with the various outcomes of the measurement. And they are all asking this question.
A: No, I think you are kind of close there. In actuality it's even a little worse than that. The WMI stems from an outright false analysis of the measurement process as requiring some form of memory possessing special "observer" which is embodied with such miraculous capabilities as (this is literally from Everett's paper) "the machine has perceived A" or "the machine is aware of A"... which sounds like a naive end run around saying "a human observer has perceived A" which, for whatever reason, seems to be important to him. No such thing is ever necessary for a physical "measurement" to take place. The interaction of a local quantum system with the physical vacuum is perfectly enough to produce a lasting record. A wonderful example of that would be CMB photons, which are the lasting record of quantum events that happened just 300,000 years after the big bang. Except for scattering on interstellar gas and dust every one of them marks the optical transition of a hydrogen or helium atom from a higher to a lower quantum state. 
