No, but if you have non-locality, then you don’t need the non-definiteness of Copenhagen, and could do with something like a Bohm or MW interpretation.
"The problem with Copenhagen is that it leaves measurement unexplained; how does a measurement select one outcome from many? Everett’s proposal keeps all outcomes alive, but this simply substitutes one problem for another: how does a measurement split apart parallel outcomes that were previously in intimate contact? In neither case is the physical mechanism of measurement accounted for; both employ sleight of hand at the crucial moment."
I don't think that criticism really understands what Everett says-- the evolution of the universal wavefunction is unitary. There is no "splitting". There is only uncertainty about what part of phase space you are in (and any measurement that tightens your certainty in one axis of phase space will broaden it along some other axis).
