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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.