Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1001.0745

Quantum Darwinism as a Darwinian process

John O. Campbell

Published Jan 5, 2010• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Darwinian nature of Wojciech Zurek's theory of Quantum Darwinism is evaluated against the criteria of a Darwinian process as understood within Universal Darwinism. The characteristics of a Darwinian process are developed including the consequences of accumulated adaptations resulting in adaptive systems operating in accordance with Friston's free energy principle and employing environmental simulations. Quantum theory, as developed in Zurek's research program and encapsulated by his theory of Quantum Darwinism is discussed from the view that Zurek's derivation of the measurement axioms implies that the evolution of a quantum system entangled with environmental entities is determined solely by the nature of the entangled system. There need be no further logical foundation. Quantum Darwinism is found to conform to the Darwinian paradigm in unexpected detail and is thus may be considered a theory within the framework of Universal Darwinism. With the inclusion of Quantum Darwinism within Universal Darwinism and the explanatory power of Darwinian processes extended beyond biology and the social sciences to include the creation and evolution of scientific subject matter within particle physics, atomic physics and chemistry, it is suggested that Universal Darwinism may be considered a candidate 'Theory of Everything' as anticipated by David Deutsch.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1001.0745

Related papers

Unraveling the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics… The Encounter Between 'Quantum Darwinism' and Biology

inquantio

∙ Quanta Magazine analyzes the principles of macroscopic world formation through quantum decoherence and quantum Darwinism. ∙ 'Einselection' fixes specific quantum states… similar to how life preserves information. ∙ Integrating quantum biology from physical and philosophical perspectives, redefining the fundamental principles of life's information processing. [Quantum Biology Society] An in-depth analysis has been proposed on how the bizarre phenomena of quantum mechanics transform into the solid macroscopic reality we observe, and what connection this process has with the evolution of life. Recently, the science media outlet Quanta Magazine reported through a contribution by renowned science writer Philip Ball that the theories of 'Quantum Darwinism' and 'Decoherence,' pioneered by physicist Wojciech Zurek, are the key to connecting biological systems with the macroscopic world. ■ The Reality of 'Survival of the Fittest' Created by 'Einselection' In the quantum realm, particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition), but in the macroscopic world we observe, they appear in only one definite state. According to Dr. Zurek's theory, this happens because quantum systems continuously interact with their surrounding environment, undergoing a process of 'decoherence' where information is dissipated. The core of this process is 'Einselection' (Environment-Induced Superselection). The environment does not accommodate all states; instead, it selects only the most stable and predictable states, known as 'pointer states,' and replicates them innumerably within the environment. Just as only the genetic information advantageous for survival is passed on and spreads in natural selection, the essence of 'Quantum Darwinism' is that quantum information also undergoes a 'survival of the fittest' process dictated by the environment. This ultimately forms an objective macroscopic reality that all of us can commonly perceive. ■ Life, a Product of Evolution that Anchors Quantum Information into Reality Philip Ball noted that these physical principles are strikingly similar to the way biological systems process information. He explains that the vital activities of living organisms—such as recognizing external stimuli, preserving genetic information, and controlling complex metabolic processes—are fundamentally the very processes of filtering meaningful information from quantum superpositions and anchoring them into the physical states of the real world. This report suggests that quantum biology is not merely a discipline that investigates microscopic reactions within cells. Rather, it is a grand unified theory explaining how life has utilized the universe's fundamental principles to process information and evolve. Built upon the theories of Dr. Zurek, a master of modern physics, this analysis presents a new philosophical and physical paradigm that views life as a cosmic entity where matter, information, and quantum mechanics are perfectly integrated.

•Jul 13, 2026•0 citations

El “darwinismo cuántico” de Zurek y su extrapolación a la evolución de los sistemas adaptativos

Eugenio Andrade

Zurek’s “quantum Darwinism” and its translation into the evolution of adaptive systems In this work I justify a scheme that favors a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. I start with a discussion on the cross fertilization and feedbacks between physics and biology for it helps to explain Maxwells demon metaphor as a forerunner of a notion of information applicable to the problem of biological adaptation that is best conceived today as information gathering and using systems (IGUS) in the sense of Zurek. It is shown how IGUS by means of measurements generate informative correlations between micro-states (genotype) and macro-states (phenotype), and between macro-states (phenotype) and environment. I further examine Zureks decoherence theory dubbed “quantum Darwinism” according to which the environment eliminates most of the superpositions of quantum systems leaving only a set of preferred states, among which are chosen those that are in fact realized in the classical world. In this view IGUS are equated to non-conscious agents of quantum measurement, a posture that modifies Copenhagen interpretation without falling into the difficulties of the “many worlds” interpretation. I, thus, propose that in order to tackle the problem of biological adaptation, it would be important to understand information as IGUS’ interpretative activity thought as physical and/or biological systems that actualize an organizing potential in accordance to an “internal model” of systems environment interactions, so that they interpret physical perturbations as informative signals that orient structural adjustments to be adopted and the actions that are projected to the external milieu. To end up I show how this model may serve to account for the origin of adaptive mutations in bacteria and to formally describe developing epigenetic systems. In this way the classical debate between Lamarckian and Darwinian schools must be reframed and perhaps superseded as the new scheme of interpretation is validated with more experimental evidence. To conclude I argue that semiosis is the clue to justify the deep analogy that allows to establishing bidirectional bridges between physical and biological models of adaptive evolution. key words. Quantum Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, natural selection, information, IGUS, adaptation, coherence, superposition, entanglement, sign, observer, measurement, ci Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds interpretation, epigenetics.

Ludus vitalis: revista de filosofía de las ciencias de la vida = journal of philosophy of life sciences = revue de philosophie des sciences de la vie•Oct 6, 2017•0 citations

Quantum Darwinism and envariance

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

Introduction Quantum measurement problem is a technical euphemism for a much deeper and less well-defined question: How do we, “the observers,” fit within the physical universe? The problem is especially apparent in quantum physics because, for the first time in the history of science a majority of (but not all) physicists seriously entertains the possibility that the framework for the ultimate universal physical theory provided by quantum mechanics is here to stay. Quantum physics relevant for this discussion is (contrary to the common prejudice) relatively simple. By this I mean that some of the key features of its predictions can be arrived at on the basis of overarching principles of quantum theory and without reference to the minutiae of other specific ingredients (such as the details of the forces). Quantum superposition principle is such an overarching principle of quantum theory. It leads to predictions that seem difficult to reconcile with our perception of the familiar classical universe of everyday experience. The aim of this paper is to show that appearance of the classical reality can be viewed as a result of the emergence of the preferred states from within the quantum substrate through the Darwinian paradigm, once the survival of the fittest quantum states and selective proliferation of the information about them throughout the universe are properly taken into account.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Apr 22, 2004•88 citations

La evolución de los sistemas complejos adaptativos según el “darwinismo cuántico” de Zurek

Eugenio Andrade

I argue for a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. Thus I outline a scheme based on Peirce’ semiosis in which the relation between environmental physical perturbations and responses (internal and external) are mediated by the “system of interpretation” that detects and interpret them as informative signals, so giving rise to structural internal accommodations and to actions that are implemented on the external environment. Therefore I argue that “systems of interpretation” can be equated to Zurek´s information gathering and using systems (IGUS) and complex adaptive systems (CAS). In order to apply these model to the problem of adaptive evolution, I examine Zurek´s theory known as “quantum Darwinism”, according to which the environment eliminates the immense majority of the super-positions of quantum systems leaving only the “preferred states”, among which are chosen those that are in fact can be realized in the classical world. To end up I justify that semiosis permits to apply quantum Darwinism to the evolution of CAS, and I argue that the debate between (Neo)-Lamarckian and Neo-Darwinian schools must be reassessed in terms more in accord with quantum physics. Finally semiosis (that is information understood as interpretation) would justify the deep analogy between quantum physical and biological models of adaptive evolution.

Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia•Aug 3, 2017•0 citations

Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

The measurement problem has been a central puzzle of quantum theory since its inception, and understanding how the classical world emerges from our fundamentally quantum universe is key to its resolution. While the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations have dominated discussion of this philosophically charged question, Zurek builds on the physics of decoherence and introduces the theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' to provide a novel account of the emergence of classical reality. Opening with a modern view of quantum theory, the book reconsiders the customary textbook account of quantum foundations, showing how the controversial axioms (including Born's rule) follow from the consistent core postulates. Part II discusses decoherence and explores its role in the quantum-to-classical transition. Part III introduces Quantum Darwinism, explaining how an information-theoretic perspective complements, elucidates, and reconciles the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations. This insightful book is essential reading for any student or researcher interested in quantum physics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 6, 2025•12 citations

Classical selection and quantum Darwinism

Ruth E. Kastner

This short letter in response to Wojciech Zurek’s article “Quantum Darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps” points out extant rebuttals in the literature to some of the author’s key claims.On the first page of his arXiv.org version of the Physics Today article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5206), Zurek states thatdecoherence selects preferred pointer states that survive interaction with the environment. They are localized and effectively classical. They persist while their superpositions decohere. Decoherence marks the border between quantum and classical, alleviating concern about flagrant … manifestations of quantumness in the macroscopic domain.Here we consider emergence of “the classical” starting at a more fundamental pre-decoherence level, tracing the origin of preferred pointer states.However, the idea that preferred pointer states naturally “emerge” from the quantum level has been refuted in the literature, in particular in a paper11. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004 showing that “classical” pointer states do not emerge unless a key aspect of classicality has been tacitly assumed from the beginning. In other words, the “quantum Darwinism” program is fatally circular.The assumption generating the circularity usually takes the form of a predesignated system that is considered separable from its environment (the same assumption appears in the discussion about information flow in Zurek’s article). The system acquires decohered observable (or stable) states because it is presumed to be distinguishable from a designated set of environmental subsystems, all assumed as having random phases—with respect to each other and the system. The only correlations between the system and the environmental subsystems are assumed to be established via the designated Hamiltonians.However, in the absence of this sort of predesignated partitioning of all degrees of freedom into the system and its surroundings—measurement apparatus, environment, and so forth—where the initial phase of each subsystem is random, the desired decoherence and emergence of pointer states, or einselection, do not follow. The partitioning is inevitably based on what a human observer would be able to identify and measure, such as distinguishable atoms and molecules, so the account is dependent on assuming the classical realm of the observer.The need for this pre-partitioning fatally conflicts with the claim that classicality emerges naturally from the quantum realm: Absent a pre-partitioning of all degrees of freedom into uncorrelated systems of interest, classical pointer states do not emerge. With unitary-only dynamics (lacking nonunitary collapse), the quantum realm does not have any a priori preference for the assumed uncorrelated degrees of freedom. On the contrary, a unitary-only evolution would typically begin with a maximally entangled universal state.As I noted in reference 11. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004, one can observe the decoherence process experimentally, but that observation does not demonstrate that einselection occurs in a unitary-only dynamics or that classicality emerges in such a dynamics. A key missing ingredient in quantum Darwinism is some real physical randomization process, such as collapse, that could create an observer-independent, physical partitioning at the quantum level. Without such a process, quantum Darwinism contains the same kind of logical circularity as Boltzmann’s H-theorem, which attempted to derive irreversible thermodynamic laws from reversible laws. Boltzmann inadvertently smuggled in irreversibility by assuming molecular chaos; quantum Darwinists smuggle in classicality via their partitioning of the universe into distinguishable systems of interest that interact with mutually randomized environmental subsystems.In his article, Zurek does not address this refutation of quantum Darwinism and repeats the refuted claims and circular assumptions. Similar criticisms of quantum Darwinism’s presumption of classically distinguishable primordial systems, raised by Jasmina Jeknić-Dugić, Miroljub Dugić, and collaborators,2–42. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53, 169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1794-x3. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, M. Arsenijević, Open Access Libr. J. 1, e501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.11005014. M. Dugić, J. Jeknić, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, 2215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-006-9186-0 and Chris Fields’s concern about the division of primordial degrees of freedom into a classically distinguishable system and environment55. C. Fields, Phys. Essays 24, 518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3644391 have also not been countered by proponents of quantum Darwinism.I acknowledge and thank Miroljub Dugić for his helpful comments.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004, Google ScholarCrossref2. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53, 169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1794-x, Google ScholarCrossref3. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, M. Arsenijević, Open Access Libr. J. 1, e501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100501, Google ScholarCrossref4. M. Dugić, J. Jeknić, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, 2215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-006-9186-0, Google ScholarCrossref5. C. Fields, Phys. Essays 24, 518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3644391, Google ScholarCrossref© 2015 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Apr 30, 2015•3 citations
The Darwinian nature of Wojciech Zurek's theory of Quantum Darwinism is evaluated against the criteria of a Darwinian process as understood within Universal Darwinism. The characteristics of a Darwinian process are developed including the consequences of accumulated adaptations resulting in adaptive systems operating in accordance with Friston's free energy principle and employing environmental simulations. Quantum theory, as developed in Zurek's research program and encapsulated by his theory of Quantum Darwinism is discussed from the view that Zurek's derivation of the measurement axioms implies that the evolution of a quantum system entangled with environmental entities is determined solely by the nature of the entangled system. There need be no further logical foundation. Quantum Darwinism is found to conform to the Darwinian paradigm in unexpected detail and is thus may be considered a theory within the framework of Universal Darwinism. With the inclusion of Quantum Darwinism within Universal Darwinism and the explanatory power of Darwinian processes extended beyond biology and the social sciences to include the creation and evolution of scientific subject matter within particle physics, atomic physics and chemistry, it is suggested that Universal Darwinism may be considered a candidate 'Theory of Everything' as anticipated by David Deutsch.
∙ Quanta Magazine analyzes the principles of macroscopic world formation through quantum decoherence and quantum Darwinism. ∙ 'Einselection' fixes specific quantum states… similar to how life preserves information. ∙ Integrating quantum biology from physical and philosophical perspectives, redefining the fundamental principles of life's information processing. [Quantum Biology Society] An in-depth analysis has been proposed on how the bizarre phenomena of quantum mechanics transform into the solid macroscopic reality we observe, and what connection this process has with the evolution of life. Recently, the science media outlet Quanta Magazine reported through a contribution by renowned science writer Philip Ball that the theories of 'Quantum Darwinism' and 'Decoherence,' pioneered by physicist Wojciech Zurek, are the key to connecting biological systems with the macroscopic world. ■ The Reality of 'Survival of the Fittest' Created by 'Einselection' In the quantum realm, particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously (superposition), but in the macroscopic world we observe, they appear in only one definite state. According to Dr. Zurek's theory, this happens because quantum systems continuously interact with their surrounding environment, undergoing a process of 'decoherence' where information is dissipated. The core of this process is 'Einselection' (Environment-Induced Superselection). The environment does not accommodate all states; instead, it selects only the most stable and predictable states, known as 'pointer states,' and replicates them innumerably within the environment. Just as only the genetic information advantageous for survival is passed on and spreads in natural selection, the essence of 'Quantum Darwinism' is that quantum information also undergoes a 'survival of the fittest' process dictated by the environment. This ultimately forms an objective macroscopic reality that all of us can commonly perceive. ■ Life, a Product of Evolution that Anchors Quantum Information into Reality Philip Ball noted that these physical principles are strikingly similar to the way biological systems process information. He explains that the vital activities of living organisms—such as recognizing external stimuli, preserving genetic information, and controlling complex metabolic processes—are fundamentally the very processes of filtering meaningful information from quantum superpositions and anchoring them into the physical states of the real world. This report suggests that quantum biology is not merely a discipline that investigates microscopic reactions within cells. Rather, it is a grand unified theory explaining how life has utilized the universe's fundamental principles to process information and evolve. Built upon the theories of Dr. Zurek, a master of modern physics, this analysis presents a new philosophical and physical paradigm that views life as a cosmic entity where matter, information, and quantum mechanics are perfectly integrated.
Zurek’s “quantum Darwinism” and its translation into the evolution of adaptive systems In this work I justify a scheme that favors a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. I start with a discussion on the cross fertilization and feedbacks between physics and biology for it helps to explain Maxwells demon metaphor as a forerunner of a notion of information applicable to the problem of biological adaptation that is best conceived today as information gathering and using systems (IGUS) in the sense of Zurek. It is shown how IGUS by means of measurements generate informative correlations between micro-states (genotype) and macro-states (phenotype), and between macro-states (phenotype) and environment. I further examine Zureks decoherence theory dubbed “quantum Darwinism” according to which the environment eliminates most of the superpositions of quantum systems leaving only a set of preferred states, among which are chosen those that are in fact realized in the classical world. In this view IGUS are equated to non-conscious agents of quantum measurement, a posture that modifies Copenhagen interpretation without falling into the difficulties of the “many worlds” interpretation. I, thus, propose that in order to tackle the problem of biological adaptation, it would be important to understand information as IGUS’ interpretative activity thought as physical and/or biological systems that actualize an organizing potential in accordance to an “internal model” of systems environment interactions, so that they interpret physical perturbations as informative signals that orient structural adjustments to be adopted and the actions that are projected to the external milieu. To end up I show how this model may serve to account for the origin of adaptive mutations in bacteria and to formally describe developing epigenetic systems. In this way the classical debate between Lamarckian and Darwinian schools must be reframed and perhaps superseded as the new scheme of interpretation is validated with more experimental evidence. To conclude I argue that semiosis is the clue to justify the deep analogy that allows to establishing bidirectional bridges between physical and biological models of adaptive evolution. key words. Quantum Darwinism, Neo-Lamarckism, natural selection, information, IGUS, adaptation, coherence, superposition, entanglement, sign, observer, measurement, ci Copenhagen interpretation, many worlds interpretation, epigenetics.
Introduction Quantum measurement problem is a technical euphemism for a much deeper and less well-defined question: How do we, “the observers,” fit within the physical universe? The problem is especially apparent in quantum physics because, for the first time in the history of science a majority of (but not all) physicists seriously entertains the possibility that the framework for the ultimate universal physical theory provided by quantum mechanics is here to stay. Quantum physics relevant for this discussion is (contrary to the common prejudice) relatively simple. By this I mean that some of the key features of its predictions can be arrived at on the basis of overarching principles of quantum theory and without reference to the minutiae of other specific ingredients (such as the details of the forces). Quantum superposition principle is such an overarching principle of quantum theory. It leads to predictions that seem difficult to reconcile with our perception of the familiar classical universe of everyday experience. The aim of this paper is to show that appearance of the classical reality can be viewed as a result of the emergence of the preferred states from within the quantum substrate through the Darwinian paradigm, once the survival of the fittest quantum states and selective proliferation of the information about them throughout the universe are properly taken into account.
I argue for a non-reductive integration between physical and biological approaches based on the notion of information as interpretation. Thus I outline a scheme based on Peirce’ semiosis in which the relation between environmental physical perturbations and responses (internal and external) are mediated by the “system of interpretation” that detects and interpret them as informative signals, so giving rise to structural internal accommodations and to actions that are implemented on the external environment. Therefore I argue that “systems of interpretation” can be equated to Zurek´s information gathering and using systems (IGUS) and complex adaptive systems (CAS). In order to apply these model to the problem of adaptive evolution, I examine Zurek´s theory known as “quantum Darwinism”, according to which the environment eliminates the immense majority of the super-positions of quantum systems leaving only the “preferred states”, among which are chosen those that are in fact can be realized in the classical world. To end up I justify that semiosis permits to apply quantum Darwinism to the evolution of CAS, and I argue that the debate between (Neo)-Lamarckian and Neo-Darwinian schools must be reassessed in terms more in accord with quantum physics. Finally semiosis (that is information understood as interpretation) would justify the deep analogy between quantum physical and biological models of adaptive evolution.
The measurement problem has been a central puzzle of quantum theory since its inception, and understanding how the classical world emerges from our fundamentally quantum universe is key to its resolution. While the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations have dominated discussion of this philosophically charged question, Zurek builds on the physics of decoherence and introduces the theory of 'Quantum Darwinism' to provide a novel account of the emergence of classical reality. Opening with a modern view of quantum theory, the book reconsiders the customary textbook account of quantum foundations, showing how the controversial axioms (including Born's rule) follow from the consistent core postulates. Part II discusses decoherence and explores its role in the quantum-to-classical transition. Part III introduces Quantum Darwinism, explaining how an information-theoretic perspective complements, elucidates, and reconciles the 'Copenhagen' and 'Many Worlds' interpretations. This insightful book is essential reading for any student or researcher interested in quantum physics.
This short letter in response to Wojciech Zurek’s article “Quantum Darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps” points out extant rebuttals in the literature to some of the author’s key claims.On the first page of his arXiv.org version of the Physics Today article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.5206), Zurek states thatdecoherence selects preferred pointer states that survive interaction with the environment. They are localized and effectively classical. They persist while their superpositions decohere. Decoherence marks the border between quantum and classical, alleviating concern about flagrant … manifestations of quantumness in the macroscopic domain.Here we consider emergence of “the classical” starting at a more fundamental pre-decoherence level, tracing the origin of preferred pointer states.However, the idea that preferred pointer states naturally “emerge” from the quantum level has been refuted in the literature, in particular in a paper11. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004 showing that “classical” pointer states do not emerge unless a key aspect of classicality has been tacitly assumed from the beginning. In other words, the “quantum Darwinism” program is fatally circular.The assumption generating the circularity usually takes the form of a predesignated system that is considered separable from its environment (the same assumption appears in the discussion about information flow in Zurek’s article). The system acquires decohered observable (or stable) states because it is presumed to be distinguishable from a designated set of environmental subsystems, all assumed as having random phases—with respect to each other and the system. The only correlations between the system and the environmental subsystems are assumed to be established via the designated Hamiltonians.However, in the absence of this sort of predesignated partitioning of all degrees of freedom into the system and its surroundings—measurement apparatus, environment, and so forth—where the initial phase of each subsystem is random, the desired decoherence and emergence of pointer states, or einselection, do not follow. The partitioning is inevitably based on what a human observer would be able to identify and measure, such as distinguishable atoms and molecules, so the account is dependent on assuming the classical realm of the observer.The need for this pre-partitioning fatally conflicts with the claim that classicality emerges naturally from the quantum realm: Absent a pre-partitioning of all degrees of freedom into uncorrelated systems of interest, classical pointer states do not emerge. With unitary-only dynamics (lacking nonunitary collapse), the quantum realm does not have any a priori preference for the assumed uncorrelated degrees of freedom. On the contrary, a unitary-only evolution would typically begin with a maximally entangled universal state.As I noted in reference 11. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004, one can observe the decoherence process experimentally, but that observation does not demonstrate that einselection occurs in a unitary-only dynamics or that classicality emerges in such a dynamics. A key missing ingredient in quantum Darwinism is some real physical randomization process, such as collapse, that could create an observer-independent, physical partitioning at the quantum level. Without such a process, quantum Darwinism contains the same kind of logical circularity as Boltzmann’s H-theorem, which attempted to derive irreversible thermodynamic laws from reversible laws. Boltzmann inadvertently smuggled in irreversibility by assuming molecular chaos; quantum Darwinists smuggle in classicality via their partitioning of the universe into distinguishable systems of interest that interact with mutually randomized environmental subsystems.In his article, Zurek does not address this refutation of quantum Darwinism and repeats the refuted claims and circular assumptions. Similar criticisms of quantum Darwinism’s presumption of classically distinguishable primordial systems, raised by Jasmina Jeknić-Dugić, Miroljub Dugić, and collaborators,2–42. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53, 169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1794-x3. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, M. Arsenijević, Open Access Libr. J. 1, e501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.11005014. M. Dugić, J. Jeknić, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, 2215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-006-9186-0 and Chris Fields’s concern about the division of primordial degrees of freedom into a classically distinguishable system and environment55. C. Fields, Phys. Essays 24, 518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3644391 have also not been countered by proponents of quantum Darwinism.I acknowledge and thank Miroljub Dugić for his helpful comments.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<CITING ARTICLES1. R. E. Kastner, Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 48, 56 (2014), and references therein. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.06.004, Google ScholarCrossref2. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 53, 169 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-013-1794-x, Google ScholarCrossref3. J. Jeknić-Dugić, M. Dugić, A. Francom, M. Arsenijević, Open Access Libr. J. 1, e501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100501, Google ScholarCrossref4. M. Dugić, J. Jeknić, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, 2215 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-006-9186-0, Google ScholarCrossref5. C. Fields, Phys. Essays 24, 518 (2011). https://doi.org/10.4006/1.3644391, Google ScholarCrossref© 2015 American Institute of Physics.