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

A Threefold Argument on the Physical Incoherence of Many-Worlds Quantum Mechanics: Transfinite Cardinality, Cauchy Surfaces, and No Cloning Theorem – Preliminary Draft

Spencer York

Published May 15, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A preliminary argument on why Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is physically incoherent, utilizing transfinite cardinality, the no-cloning theorem, and Cauchy Surfaces in General Relativity.
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.20214094

Related papers

AGAINST MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATIONS

Adrian Kent

This is a critical review of the literature on many-worlds interpretations, MWI, with arguments drawn partly from earlier critiques by Bell and Stein. The essential postulates involved in various MWI are extracted, and their consistency with the evident physical world is examined. Arguments are presented against MWI proposed by Everett, Graham and DeWitt. The relevance of frequency operators to MWI is examined; it is argued that frequency operator theorems of Hartle and Farhi-Goldstone-Gutmann do not in themselves provide a probability interpretation for quantum mechanics, and thus neither support existing MWI nor would be useful in constructing new MWI. Comments are made on papers by Geroch and Deutsch that advocate MWI. It is concluded that no plausible set of axioms exists for an MWI that describes known physics.

arXiv:gr-qc/9703089•International Journal of Modern Physics A•May 10, 1990•167 citations

Why the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Needs More Than Hilbert Space Structure

Meir Hemmo, Orly Shenker

n their contribution to this book, McQueen and Vaidman argue that common sense requires that explanations in physics be not only causal1 but also local. Their main claim is that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (originally due to Everett) provides local explanations of the outcomes of experiments that in other interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to require (some sort of) nonlocality. Particles in the MWI leave traces both in the world where they exist but also in other worlds in which they do not exist. So the explanation is said to be local because spacetime splits together with the particles so that there is no influence at space-like separation within a world, but the causal influence literally travels across ‘parallel’ worlds. This seems to stretch the concept of locality beyond common sense, if not beyond breaking point, even if one understands causation weakly in terms of counterfactual dependence rather than by straightforward physical interaction.

Routledge eBooks•May 27, 2020•4 citations

Are there really many worlds in the "Many-worlds interpretation" of Quantum Mechanics?

Daniel Parrochia

Since the 1970s, the Everett-Wheeler many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics (1955) has been much in the news. One wonders about the worlds in question, their branches, their splittings, their number. It is most often ignored that this language is not that of Everett, whom Wheeler very quickly stopped supporting. Moreover, for some interpreters, the real meaning of Everett ideas is not the coexistence of many worlds, but the existence of a single quantum one. In this context, what should we think of attempts to verify Everett thesis? What about the connexion between MWI and the cosmological multiverse? How to understand the links between the quantum world and the classical one? This article tries to answer some of these questions.

arXiv:2001.03771•Jan 11, 2020•0 citations

Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Paradoxical Picture

Amir Abbass Varshovi

The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics is studied from an unprecedented ontological perspective based on the reality of (semi-) deterministic parallel worlds in the interpretation. It is demonstrated that with thanks to the uncertainty principle there would be no consistent way to specify the correct ontology of the Universe, hence the MWI is subject to an inherent contradiction which claims that the world where we live in is unreal.

arXiv:2011.13928•Nov 27, 2020•0 citations

The Argument from Locality for Many Worlds Quantum Mechanics

Alyssa Ney

One motivation for preferring the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics over realist rivals, such as collapse and hidden variables theories, is that the interpretation is able to preserve locality (in the sense of no action at a distance) in a way these other theories cannot. The primary goal of this paper is to make this argument for the many worlds interpretation precise, in a way that does not rely on controversial assumptions about the metaphysics of many worlds.

The Journal of Philosophy•Jan 1, 2025•3 citations

Parallel Dialogues: What LLM Inference Can (and Cannot) Teach Us About the Many-Worlds Interpretation — A Companion Note

Earth Vitaly Shcherbak — Institution: Montenegro, San Francisco) Claude (Anthropic PBC

A companion note to "Evidence for the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics via Large Language Model Architecture" (10.5281/zenodo.20533902). Revisits the structural analogy between parallel LLM inference and Everettian branching honestly: identifies what the analogy illustrates well (shared origin, isolated states, irreversible branch selection) and where it breaks down as physics — chiefly, the analogy is externally observable in a way that MWI branches, by construction, cannot be.

•Sep 15, 2026•0 citations
This is a critical review of the literature on many-worlds interpretations, MWI, with arguments drawn partly from earlier critiques by Bell and Stein. The essential postulates involved in various MWI are extracted, and their consistency with the evident physical world is examined. Arguments are presented against MWI proposed by Everett, Graham and DeWitt. The relevance of frequency operators to MWI is examined; it is argued that frequency operator theorems of Hartle and Farhi-Goldstone-Gutmann do not in themselves provide a probability interpretation for quantum mechanics, and thus neither support existing MWI nor would be useful in constructing new MWI. Comments are made on papers by Geroch and Deutsch that advocate MWI. It is concluded that no plausible set of axioms exists for an MWI that describes known physics.
n their contribution to this book, McQueen and Vaidman argue that common sense requires that explanations in physics be not only causal1 but also local. Their main claim is that the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics (originally due to Everett) provides local explanations of the outcomes of experiments that in other interpretations of quantum mechanics seem to require (some sort of) nonlocality. Particles in the MWI leave traces both in the world where they exist but also in other worlds in which they do not exist. So the explanation is said to be local because spacetime splits together with the particles so that there is no influence at space-like separation within a world, but the causal influence literally travels across ‘parallel’ worlds. This seems to stretch the concept of locality beyond common sense, if not beyond breaking point, even if one understands causation weakly in terms of counterfactual dependence rather than by straightforward physical interaction.
Since the 1970s, the Everett-Wheeler many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of Quantum Mechanics (1955) has been much in the news. One wonders about the worlds in question, their branches, their splittings, their number. It is most often ignored that this language is not that of Everett, whom Wheeler very quickly stopped supporting. Moreover, for some interpreters, the real meaning of Everett ideas is not the coexistence of many worlds, but the existence of a single quantum one. In this context, what should we think of attempts to verify Everett thesis? What about the connexion between MWI and the cosmological multiverse? How to understand the links between the quantum world and the classical one? This article tries to answer some of these questions.
A companion note to "Evidence for the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics via Large Language Model Architecture" (10.5281/zenodo.20533902). Revisits the structural analogy between parallel LLM inference and Everettian branching honestly: identifies what the analogy illustrates well (shared origin, isolated states, irreversible branch selection) and where it breaks down as physics — chiefly, the analogy is externally observable in a way that MWI branches, by construction, cannot be.