Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum State Preparation Representation Quantum Foundations Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Guildenstern and Rosencrantz in Quantumland - A Reply to Adrian Kent

arXiv
Authors: Vincent Duhamel, Paul Raymond-Robichaud

Year

2011

Paper ID

29789

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

87

Citations

N/A

Abstract

This paper is an answer to the first part of Adrian Kent's One World versus Many : the Inadequacy of Everettian Accounts of Evolution, Probability, and Scientific Confirmation [arXiv:0905.0624]. We take issue with Kent's arguments against many-world interpretations of quantum mechanics. We argue that his reasons for preferring single-world interpretations are logically flawed and that his proposed singleworld alternative to probability theory suffers from conceptual problems. We use a few thought-experiments which show that the problems he raises for probabilities in multiverses also apply in a single universe.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • This paper is an answer to the first part of Adrian Kent's One World versus Many : the Inadequacy of Everettian Accounts of Evolution, Probability, and Scientific Confirmation...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #29789 #69985 From Meta Idea to Advanced Math... #69984 Efficient and SPAM-Robust Ansat... #69955 Efficient Verification of Entan... #69953 Bell inequalities tailored to o...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.