Consider reading a real physicist's take on the issue

This seems phrased to suggest that her view is "the real physicist view" on the multiverse. You could also read what Max Tegmark or David Deutsch, for instance, have to say about multiverse hypotheses and get a "real physicist's" view from them.

Also, she doesn't actually say much in that blog post. She points out that when she says that multiverse hypotheses are unscientific, she doesn't mean that they're false, so this doesn't seem especially useful to someone who wants to know whether there actually is a multiverse, or is interested in the consequences thereof. She says "there is no reason to think we live in such multiverses to begin with", but proponents of multiverse hypotheses have given reasons to support their views, which she doesn't address.

The linked post is the last in a series of posts, the first of which has been linked here in the past [LW · GW]. I recommend that anyone who reads the post shminux linked, also read the LW discussion of the post I just linked, as it seems to me that many of the arguments therein are addressed in a more than satisfactory manner. (In particular, I strongly endorse Jessica Taylor's response, which is as of this writing the most highly upvoted comment on that page.)

As someone who is not a great friend of MWI,I found that poorly argued. She doesnt believe in other branches because they are unobservable. She does believe in the interior of black holes, though no one has come back with a report on them.. because theory says they are observable. But what are MWIers basing things on except theory?

So she is picking and choosing between theories.. although she claims not to be, elsewhere!