Your question is, why will there be a bruno entity with the idea that 'he'
is one moment on from 'you now'. The answer is MWI. Everything exists;
surely you don't need persuading of that, Bruno?
You then ask where my 'apparantly personal belief' comes from (or as
Buddhists call it, the 'illusion of self'). The answer is, again, that a
'me' with such a belief does exist in the plenitude, and it is for you to
suggest why 'I' should not be that 'me'.
Correction: I do not tell you that there is only one observer moment; just
that we experience only one suc moment and our deductive reasoning should
not start with the assumption that the moment is related to any others.
You ask where your meaningless questions come from. Again. MWI: there are
very many meaningless questions I suppose an infinite numbe. If there was a
limited supply of them, this would imply that the universe was much more
complex than it need to be - Kolmogorov, counting algorithm etc.
You then ask how to derive schroedinger equation: i.e. why do
observer-moments which incude awareness of the schroedinger equation tend to
include the same equation? I have long argued that all laws and constants
are products of the weak anthropic principle, as per Barndon Carter.
To try to put WAP in the language we are using here, the answer would be
that the Scroedinger equation is one of our subjective ways of stringing
together otherwise unrelated observer moments.
There are no objective arrows of time, but we have invented/observed many
subjective ones that tend to give the same answers.
Now, while I claim that this is, in principle, all that is necessary to
derive Schroedinger, I graoan at your insistence that I explain
'consciousness'. I deny that consciousness exists, by however you try to
define it. There is this observer moment, and the onus is on you to
demostrate that there is another related moment, which would be a
pre-requisite of consiousness.