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:1603.04845

The Illusory Appeal of Decoherence in the Everettian Picture: Affirming the Consequent

Ruth E. Kastner

Published Mar 15, 2016• 5 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The idea that decoherence in a unitary-only quantum theory suffices to explain emergence of classical phenomena has been shown in the peer-reviewed literature to be seriously flawed due to circularity. However, claims continue to be made that this approach, also known as "Quantum Darwinism," is the correct way to understand classical emergence. This Letter reviews the basic problem and points out an additional logical flaw in the argument. It is concluded that the "Quantum Darwinism" program fails.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1603.04845

Related papers

Decoherence, quantum Darwinism, and the generic emergence of our objective classical reality

Paul A. Knott

In this article I aim to provide an intuitive and non-technical introduction to decoherence and quantum Darwinism. Together these theories explain how our classical reality emerges from an underlying quantum mechanical description. Here I focus on two aspects of this and explain, firstly, how decoherence can tell us why we never see macroscopic superpositions, such as dead-and-alive cats, in our classical surroundings; and secondly I describe and then provide a resolution to the so-called preferred basis problem. I then introduce recent results demonstrating that certain aspects of classicality are generic phenomena that emerge from the basic mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. This is in stark contrast to previous work in this field that focused on specific models that cannot realistically be scaled up to explicitly answer questions about the macroscopic world. Finally, I demonstrate how decoherence and quantum Darwinism can shed significant light on the measurement problem, and I discuss the implications for how we should interpret quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1811.09062•Nov 22, 2018•1 citation

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

Decoherence without the state: A causal quantum Darwinist approach

Nick Ormrod, Tein van der Lugt, Yìlè Yīng +1 more

The consistent histories formalism can be used to describe histories comprised of events across many systems, times, and places, plausibly rich enough to describe our experiences of the classical world; however, many consistent history sets are nonclassical and thus not obviously relevant to our experiences. Meanwhile, the program of environmentally induced decoherence identifies dynamically privileged classical degrees of freedom, but provides no general account of when or how many such degrees of freedom consistently combine to form histories. This work shows that the strengths of these two approaches can be combined by adopting a dynamics-first perspective on decoherence. Inspired by quantum causal models and quantum Darwinism, we define the process of decoherence in terms of the causal influences through unitary dynamics required for the proliferation of information about observables. We characterise decoherence as a property of the unitary dynamics, without presupposing the existence of any quantum state. Instead, we show that the state emerges from dual decoherence, related to decoherence by time-reversal of the unitary dynamics. Indeed, for any set of systems in an arbitrary unitary circuit, decoherence and its dual single out a privileged consistent history set -- and we demonstrate through examples that states emerge from dual decoherence while outcomes emerge from decoherence. Hence the idea that quantum states emerge from the process of decoherence turns out to be the key missing ingredient for unifying environmentally induced decoherence and consistent histories. Taking this idea ontologically seriously leads to a recently proposed causal interpretation of quantum theory or a dynamics-first version of the Everett interpretation. The causal approach also sheds light on the suppression of off-diagonal terms, time asymmetry, and robustness of the pointer basis.

quant-pharXiv:2605.07090•May 11, 2026•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

Quantum Darwinism and the Existential Interpretation

Wojciech Hubert Zurek

There are two widely known interpretations of quantum theory: Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and Everett’s interpretation. The focus of Chapter 9 is to assess, within the context they provide, the interpretation-independent advances discussed in this book. We want to see whether the advances that include decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit these two established and widely known points of view. In fact, it is surprising that (with minor but significant adjustments) decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit very naturally, addressing questions that were recognized as open and important. We then discuss the existential interpretation. It can be seen as a continuation of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Universe consisting of quantum and classical realms, but with classicality that is emergent, rather than preordained. It is also compatible with Everett’s interpretation, since quantum states and evolutions are all that is needed. However, unlike the Many Worlds interpretation (which regards the quantum state of the Universe as objectively existing, akin to a classical point in phase space or a classical electromagnetic field), the existential interpretation recognizes that quantum states combine information and existence—they are epiontic. The mix of existence and information they represent fits the relative states reading of Everett’s approach.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Mar 6, 2025•0 citations

Comment on "Quantum Darwinism, Decoherence, and the Randomness of Quantum Jumps," arXiv:1412.5206

Ruth E. Kastner

This brief note in response to Wojciech Zurek's article "Quantum Darwinism, classical reality, and the randomness of quantum jumps" (Physics Today, October 2014, page 44) points out extant rebuttals in the literature to some of the author's key claims.

arXiv:1412.7950•Dec 19, 2014•1 citation
The idea that decoherence in a unitary-only quantum theory suffices to explain emergence of classical phenomena has been shown in the peer-reviewed literature to be seriously flawed due to circularity. However, claims continue to be made that this approach, also known as "Quantum Darwinism," is the correct way to understand classical emergence. This Letter reviews the basic problem and points out an additional logical flaw in the argument. It is concluded that the "Quantum Darwinism" program fails.
In this article I aim to provide an intuitive and non-technical introduction to decoherence and quantum Darwinism. Together these theories explain how our classical reality emerges from an underlying quantum mechanical description. Here I focus on two aspects of this and explain, firstly, how decoherence can tell us why we never see macroscopic superpositions, such as dead-and-alive cats, in our classical surroundings; and secondly I describe and then provide a resolution to the so-called preferred basis problem. I then introduce recent results demonstrating that certain aspects of classicality are generic phenomena that emerge from the basic mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. This is in stark contrast to previous work in this field that focused on specific models that cannot realistically be scaled up to explicitly answer questions about the macroscopic world. Finally, I demonstrate how decoherence and quantum Darwinism can shed significant light on the measurement problem, and I discuss the implications for how we should interpret quantum mechanics.
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.
The consistent histories formalism can be used to describe histories comprised of events across many systems, times, and places, plausibly rich enough to describe our experiences of the classical world; however, many consistent history sets are nonclassical and thus not obviously relevant to our experiences. Meanwhile, the program of environmentally induced decoherence identifies dynamically privileged classical degrees of freedom, but provides no general account of when or how many such degrees of freedom consistently combine to form histories. This work shows that the strengths of these two approaches can be combined by adopting a dynamics-first perspective on decoherence. Inspired by quantum causal models and quantum Darwinism, we define the process of decoherence in terms of the causal influences through unitary dynamics required for the proliferation of information about observables. We characterise decoherence as a property of the unitary dynamics, without presupposing the existence of any quantum state. Instead, we show that the state emerges from dual decoherence, related to decoherence by time-reversal of the unitary dynamics. Indeed, for any set of systems in an arbitrary unitary circuit, decoherence and its dual single out a privileged consistent history set -- and we demonstrate through examples that states emerge from dual decoherence while outcomes emerge from decoherence. Hence the idea that quantum states emerge from the process of decoherence turns out to be the key missing ingredient for unifying environmentally induced decoherence and consistent histories. Taking this idea ontologically seriously leads to a recently proposed causal interpretation of quantum theory or a dynamics-first version of the Everett interpretation. The causal approach also sheds light on the suppression of off-diagonal terms, time asymmetry, and robustness of the pointer basis.
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.
There are two widely known interpretations of quantum theory: Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation and Everett’s interpretation. The focus of Chapter 9 is to assess, within the context they provide, the interpretation-independent advances discussed in this book. We want to see whether the advances that include decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit these two established and widely known points of view. In fact, it is surprising that (with minor but significant adjustments) decoherence and quantum Darwinism fit very naturally, addressing questions that were recognized as open and important. We then discuss the existential interpretation. It can be seen as a continuation of the Copenhagen interpretation, with the Universe consisting of quantum and classical realms, but with classicality that is emergent, rather than preordained. It is also compatible with Everett’s interpretation, since quantum states and evolutions are all that is needed. However, unlike the Many Worlds interpretation (which regards the quantum state of the Universe as objectively existing, akin to a classical point in phase space or a classical electromagnetic field), the existential interpretation recognizes that quantum states combine information and existence—they are epiontic. The mix of existence and information they represent fits the relative states reading of Everett’s approach.