With all due respect this article is quite poorly written. There's a number of grammatical errors and typos which make it difficult to follow, and it's very "rambly" in its discourse.

I'd invite you to consider something very simple - is it better to have faith in something or to be convinced of it? The former could be considered a subset of the latter. Faith is blindly believing in something without necessarily being thoroughly convinced by it. In my opinion, this is a weaker position than rigorous scientific evidence or even intuition. Faith is not the same as intuition - it relies on surrendering to another perspective completely without any reservations, and has led to a great deal of evil for humanity at large (the Catholic Church has been a source of some of this evil).

Given that all we have is subjective awareness, and that we came up with logic and reason, that is self-evidently false? I don't understand your line of thinking here. Logic and reason is a subset of subjective awareness, as you say. So how can logic and reason describe subjective awareness in its totality? It can't - it can only ever point to it or hint at it in some way. That's the point I'm making. Furthermore, logic and reason aren't good mechanisms to explain this totality, as they are extremely rigid and limited subsets of it.

The many-worlds interpretation is physicist's way of making philosophical commentary on subjective awareness. The fact that this interpretation immediately descends into logical nonsense should show us that subjective awareness can never be described in logical, rational terms, or even through the apparently all-encompassing lens of physicalism. Any wave function collapse interpretation quickly becomes philosophical rather than empirical in nature (note that empiricism is a subset of philosophy, not something that philosophy is contained within).