> In the blog post you linked above

Again, huh??? Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"?

> I provided 3 ways to demonstrate it experimentally, even in principle, not sure what problem you have.

No, you didn't. You apparently don't understand what is meant by "branches with different macroscopic configurations than our own" and I don't have time to explain it to you. Sorry. Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch. You can't, because if you could it would by definition not be fully docohered.

>Where in that blog post do I try to "get this [sic] statistics from one measurement"?

In the discussion how different people place bets on A and B outcomes of experiment. Well, you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule. MWI accounts for Born rule as statistics of measurements, and the discussion of bets is the closest this in that blog post to consideration of statistics of measurements, but that discussion seemingly considers one measurement, that's why it doesn't see statistics.

>Go read up on decoherence, and then come back and describe an experiment that can demonstrate the existence of a fully decohered branch.

It looks like a logical problem to me. You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches? Violation of the law of excluded middle? If the law of excluded middle doesn't work, I don't think experiments can demonstrate anything.

> you didn't state clearly why you believe that MWI doesn't account for Born rule

That's what the whole post was about. The MWI doesn't account for the Born rule unless you add additional, questionable assumptions like branch indifference to the SE.

> You suggest that decoherence both produces and doesn't produce fully decohered branches?

No, that is not even remotely what I am saying. You are beginning to sound like a troll.