Collapse of the many-worlds interpretation: Why Everett's theory is typically wrong
Open accessAbstract
We analyze the objective meaning of probabilities in the context of the many-worlds interpretation of Everett. For this purpose we study in details the weak law of large numbers and the role of typicality and universally negligible probabilities (through the works of Cournot and Borel). We demonstrate that Everett's theory doesn't provide any clue for fixing a probability rule and therefore contradicts irrevocably empirical facts and Born's law.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The theory does not contain enough ingredients to unequivocally fix the probability problem.
“Defining a probabilitytypicality measure using Born's rule is allowed, but this breaks the symmetry or democracy between the branches; the theory does not contain enough ingredients to unequivocally fix the problem [48].”
From An Elementary Proof That Everett's Quantum Multiverse Is Nonlocal: Bell-Locality and Branch-Symmetry in the Many-Worlds Interpretation (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Morphing probability into a typicality measure does not help resolve the probability problem.
“Morphing probability into a typicality measure does not help, and this 'proof' has been strongly criticized over the years, in particular because it relies on many subtleties concerning the application of the Bernoulli law of large-numbers, e.g., concerning infinite sequences of repeated experiments (for reviews and discussions, see [47, 48]).”
From An Elementary Proof That Everett's Quantum Multiverse Is Nonlocal: Bell-Locality and Branch-Symmetry in the Many-Worlds Interpretation (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
Defining a probability/typicality measure using Born's rule breaks the symmetry or democracy between the branches.
“Defining a probabilitytypicality measure using Born's rule is allowed, but this breaks the symmetry or democracy between the branches; the theory does not contain enough ingredients to unequivocally fix the problem [48].”
From An Elementary Proof That Everett's Quantum Multiverse Is Nonlocal: Bell-Locality and Branch-Symmetry in the Many-Worlds Interpretation (2023) · cites this paper as [48]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 76 · Cited by 1
- Authors
- Drezet, A.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Drezet, Aurélien
- ORCID
- Drezet, Aurélien
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2109.10646
- OpenAlex
- W3201254177
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 76
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Keywords
- many-worlds interpretation, quantum probability, Born rule, weak law of large numbers, typicality, Cournot competition, Borel, measurement problem
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
