2000/01/16 by Lev Vaidman, L. Vaidman, Vaidman, L. · 1 citation
Arts and Humanities · Physics and Astronomy · Psychology · #FOS: Physical sciences #Philosophy and History of Science #Philosophy and Theoretical Science #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0001057
6 pages
arxiv created 2000/01/16 · openalex publication_date 2000/01/16 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
Byrne and Hall (1999) criticized the argument of Chalmers (1996) in favor of the Everett-style interpretation. They claimed to show ``the deep and underappreciated flaw in ANY Everett-style interpretation''. I will argue that it is possible to interpret Chalmers's writing in such a way that most of the criticism by Byrne and Hall does not apply. In any case their general criticism of the many-worlds interpretation is unfounded. The recent recognition that the Everett-style interpretations are good (if not the best) interpretations of quantum mechanics has, therefore, not been negated.