Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

The Case for the Everett Multiverse

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Quantum mechanics as actually used by physicists is the Everett multiverse, this chapter argues; no known replacement reproduces its empirical content.

desk verdict A clear, honest restatement of Wallace's Everettian case, with no new argument but a load-bearing universal negative that the chapter itself cannot support. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07706 v1 pith:IUW263R5 submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

David Wallace This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Everettinterpretationmany-worldsquantummeasurementproblemunitarymechanicsdecoherencestateBornrulefieldtheory
topics The Measurement Problem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that quantum mechanics as actually used by physicists—unitary, collapse-free, and treating measurement as an ordinary physical process—is not one interpretation among many but already is the Everett interpretation. It claims that every serious rival either reduces the quantum state to an inferential tool, which cannot say what the inferences are about, or tries to replace the theory, and that no known replacement reproduces the full empirical content of modern quantum mechanics, including quantum field theory. If this is right, the quantum measurement problem dissolves: every outcome occurs in some branch, and decoherence keeps the branches evolving as ordinary, mutually isolated worlds. The chapter is aimed at a general philosophical reader and closes by urging that quantum mechanics should constrain our metaphysics rather than be rejected on prior philosophical grounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is 'unitary quantum mechanics' as a framework: the Schrödinger equation applied universally, no fundamental collapse postulate, and the Born rule applied only to decohered degrees of freedom. The mechanism that carries the argument is decoherence, the suppression of interference for coarse-grained or collective variables by their redundant recording in microscopic degrees of freedom; it explains why large branches look classical, why they do not reinterfere, and why branch count is scale-relative and not sharply defined. The argument's pivot is the observer-as-quantum-system step: once measurement is treated as a unitary interaction, an observer who measures a superposition necessarily ends up in a superposition of seeing each outcome, and that branching superposition is the multiverse.

What would settle it

The clearest test is to search for genuine dynamical collapse: if matter-wave interference or optomechanical superposition experiments show a loss of visibility that cannot be attributed to environmental decoherence and that follows a collapse model's predicted mass dependence, the unitary premise fails. A second observation would be the publication of a fully worked-out relativistic, quantum-field-theoretic version of a hidden-variable or collapse theory that reproduces Standard Model predictions; absent such a theory, the paper's claim that no replacement exists remains standing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that contemporary 'unitary quantum mechanics'—characterized by five features: all closed systems evolve unitarily under the Schrödinger equation, outside systems can be included in that unitary description, classical physics is an emergent approximation of quantum mechanics, decoherence suppresses interference for collective degrees of freedom, and measurement has no special role—cannot be read epistemically or inferentially, and cannot be replaced by a modified theory. The only consistent reading is representational, and that reading entails that observers themselves become part of the superposition they investigate: an observer looking at Schrödinger's cat evolves into a superposition of seeing the cat alive and seeing it dead. Because decoherence prevents reinterference, each component evolves without reference to the other, and there is a good word for a part of reality that looks like the ordinary Earth and evolves independently: a world. Section 5 asserts that no known modification, completion, or replacement of quantum mechanics reproduces the full range of unitary quantum mechanics, especially its quantum field theoretic predictions, so the Everett multiverse is forced if current physics is right.

Load-bearing premise

The paper leans on readers taking on trust that its five-feature description of modern quantum mechanics—universal unitary evolution, no fundamental collapse, emergent classicality via decoherence, and no special role for measurement—is an accurate characterization of contemporary physics; if that characterization is wrong, or if a dynamical collapse mechanism exists at any rate, the argument for the Everett multiverse collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quantum measurement problem is dissolved rather than solved: every possible outcome occurs, and ordinary experience is the experience of one branch.
  • The projection postulate survives only as an optional calculational shortcut for decohered degrees of freedom; it cannot be a fundamental dynamical process.
  • Any empirically adequate rival theory must reproduce the predictions of quantum field theory, not merely nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, and no extant rival does.
  • Objective probability becomes branch weight: the squared moduli of amplitudes in the decoherent limit ground self-locating uncertainty about which branch one occupies.
  • Dynamical collapse theories are the live empirical threat to the conclusion, and next-generation experiments on macroscopic superpositions can either vindicate or refute the unitary picture.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the no-alternative claim holds, the burden of proof shifts to critics of many-worlds—rejecting Everett means rejecting unmodified quantum mechanics and therefore owing a replacement with the same empirical reach, not just a conceptual objection.
  • Beyond the paper: the argument could be pressed as a research program—trying to construct a collapse or hidden-variable treatment of quantum field theory would simultaneously test and potentially falsify the central claim.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper's point that branch count is ill-defined suggests that debates over 'how many worlds' are likely category mistakes; a more productive target is deriving the Born rule and decision-theoretic weights within the decoherent branch structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The chapter argues that contemporary quantum mechanics, as actually used in physics, is best understood as unitary, collapse-free quantum mechanics with five features: unitarity for closed systems, dilation, emergent classicality, decoherence, and no special role for measurement. Against this background, the epistemic and inferential readings of the quantum state fail, leaving the representational reading; applying that reading to measurement leads to superpositions of macroscopic records, which the author interprets as branching worlds. The chapter closes the apparent escape route by asserting that no modification, completion, or replacement of unitary quantum mechanics reproduces its empirical content, especially in quantum field theory. The conclusion is that Everettian many-worlds is not one interpretation among others but the only viable reading of our current physics.

Significance. If correct, the argument would relocate the debate: Everett would be entailed by mainstream physics practice, and all rival interpretations or modified theories would need to reproduce quantum field theory to be viable. The chapter is unusually candid: it flags its reliance on the descriptive accuracy of the five-feature characterization, offers a conditional fallback, acknowledges that nonrelativistic alternatives exist, and lists possible weak points. Those virtues are real, but the force of the paper depends on two premises that are not established in the manuscript: the accuracy of the Section 3 characterization and the Section 5 universal negative about alternatives. The chapter is a useful synthesis for a companion volume, with clear presentation and honest limitation statements, but it is not self-contained on its decisive premise.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5] The claim that 'No known modification, completion, or replacement of quantum mechanics exists that reproduces the full range (or even very much of the range) of unitary quantum mechanics' is the load-bearing premise that closes off the change-the-theory route. The chapter concedes that nonrelativistic alternatives (GRW, CSL, de Broglie-Bohm) exist, so everything turns on the extension to quantum field theory. That extension claim is supported only by a citation to Wallace (2023) and a brief parenthetical remark; the reader is given no basis to assess it. Because this universal negative is essential to the dichotomy that drives the Everett conclusion, the chapter should either summarize the arguments from Wallace (2023) in enough detail to be assessable, or state the conclusion as conditional on that external argument. As written, the categorical conclusion in the abstract outruns the support provided.
  2. [§3] The five-feature characterization of unitary quantum mechanics (Unitarity, Dilation, Emergent Classicality, Decoherence, No special role for measurement) is taken on trust, as the author explicitly says. The conditional fallback is a genuine strength, but the chapter's headline claims are not framed conditionally: the abstract and introduction assert that quantum mechanics 'needs to be understood' in many-worlds terms. If the characterization is wrong—for instance, if a dynamical collapse mechanism exists at any non-zero rate—the argument for branching worlds does not go through. The paper should either provide at least a minimal case (with references to standard QFT texts) that the five features are indeed the operative structure of contemporary physics, or consistently present the conclusion as conditional on that premise.
  3. [§8] Section 8 lists as possible weak points that relational quantum mechanics 'can be understood as offering alternative readings of unitary quantum mechanics' and that 'a sufficiently radical antireductionism could accept the emergent macroscopic description given by quantum mechanics as accurate while rejecting its microscopic foundations.' These are not peripheral concessions: they are admissions that the trichotomy of inferential/epistemic/representational readings in Sections 1 and 4 is not exhaustive. If relational or antireductionist readings of unitary QM are viable, the conclusion of Section 6 that 'we can make sense of unitary quantum mechanics via a representational reading' and hence must accept the multiverse is too strong. The chapter should either argue against these alternatives or qualify the central claim to apply only under the reductionist, objective-realist assumptions it favors.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§7] The heading 'consquences' should be 'consequences'.
  2. [§5] The text contains a typo: 'onlty' should be 'only', and 'GR W' should be 'GRW'.
  3. [§8] The phrase 'Rovelliet al' should be 'Rovelli et al', and 'intepretation' should be 'interpretation'.
  4. [§1] The word 'resemblence' should be 'resemblance'.
  5. [References] In the Albert (1992) entry, 'Massachussets' should be spelled 'Massachusetts'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The Everett derivation itself is self-contained, but the load-bearing 'no empirically adequate alternatives' premise is delegated to the author's own Wallace (2023) rather than established in this chapter.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 5, 'Change the theory?' (paragraph following the bolded universal claim, with parenthetical '(I expand on this claim in Wallace, 2023.)')]
    "No known modification, completion, or replacement of quantum mechanics exists that reproduces the full range (or even very much of the range) of unitary quantum mechanics. ... (I expand on this claim in Wallace, 2023.)"

    This universal negative is the premise that closes off the 'change the theory' horn of the central dichotomy: if any modification could reproduce unitary quantum mechanics' empirical content, the inference to Everett would not be forced. In this chapter the claim is not derived from the listed features of unitary QM, nor from an independent review; the only support given is a citation to the author's own Wallace (2023), and the adjacent skeptical argument is likewise attributed to that same self-citation. Because that prior work is not machine-checked, code-reproduced, or otherwise independently verified within the chapter, the load-bearing uniqueness claim effectively reduces to the author's own authority.

full rationale

The core of the chapter is a conceptual derivation from unitary quantum mechanics to branching: given linear dynamics, decoherence, and no collapse, an observer becomes a superposition of ordinary observers (Eq. 12), which is an independent argument and not circular. No parameters are fitted and no prediction is renamed as a derivation. The main circularity-relevant weakness is the Section 5 impossibility claim: the dichotomy 'Everett or replace QM' is closed by citing the author's own Wallace (2023), without in-chapter proof or independent benchmark. Additional self-citations, such as Wallace (2019) for collapse being paradoxical, are supporting rather than definitional. The chapter explicitly invites readers to conditionalize on its description of unitary QM, but the no-alternatives thesis is categorical and self-cited, so a moderate score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The chapter has no free numeric parameters. Its argument rests on descriptive assumptions about how quantum mechanics is practiced, the absence of dynamical collapse, and the empirical inadequacy of rival theories. The only invented entity is the multiverse itself, which is an interpretive posit rather than a new physical degree of freedom.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Contemporary quantum mechanics is accurately characterized by five features: unitarity, dilation, emergent classicality, decoherence, and no special role for measurement.
    Section 3 presents this as a descriptive claim and explicitly asks readers to take it on trust, with a fallback conditional hypothesis.
  • domain assumption Dynamical wavefunction collapse is absent; the collapse rule exists at most as an innocuous, optional calculational shortcut.
    Section 3: the author assumes collapse exists 'in at most its innocuous and optional form' and cites his own Wallace (2019) for the claim that collapse is not used in modern physics.
  • domain assumption The Born rule is applied only to decoherent degrees of freedom, so no contradictions arise with the representational reading.
    Section 3 states that in unitary quantum mechanics the reference to 'measurement' in the Born rule drops away and is replaced by application to decoherent degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption No known modification, completion, or replacement of quantum mechanics reproduces the full range of unitary quantum mechanics, especially in quantum field theory.
    Section 5 asserts this universal negative and refers to the author's own Wallace (2023) for support; it is not demonstrated in this chapter.
  • standard math Standard Hilbert-space quantum mechanics, including the Born rule and the Schrödinger equation, is taken as given.
    The whole argument presupposes the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics without proof, which is appropriate for a philosophy chapter.
invented entities (1)
  • Emergent multiverse with branching worlds
    purpose: Solves the measurement problem by treating each decohered component of the quantum state as a separate world, so all measurement outcomes occur in some branch.
    The branching worlds are an interpretation of the existing quantum state, not independently observable entities. They make no new experimental predictions beyond standard quantum mechanics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Case for the Everett Multiverse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUW263R5

@misc{pith2026260807706,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Case for the Everett Multiverse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUW263R5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07706}
}
read the original abstract

I give a non-technical presentation of the argument that quantum mechanics, in the form in which it is currently used, needs to be understood in many-worlds (Everettian) terms; the alternatives that have been discussed are at present not able to reproduce the full empirical content of the theory. This is a draft of a chapter for the forthcoming \emph{Blackwell Companion to Philosophy and the Multiverse (Klaas Kraay and Daniel Rubio, eds.) }

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. Adlam. The problem of confirmation in the E verett interpretation. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 47: 0 21--32, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2014.03.004 2014

  2. [2]

    E. Adlam. Saving Science from Quantum Mechanics: The Epistemology of the Measurement Problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2025. doi:10.1093/9780197808887.001.0001

    doi:10.1093/9780197808887.001.0001 2025

  3. [3]

    D. Z. Albert. Quantum mechanics and experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1992

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    D. Z. Albert. Elementary quantum metaphysics. In J. T. Cushing, A. Fine, and S. Goldstein, editors, Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal, pages 277--284, Dordrecht, 1996. Kluwer Academic Publishers

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    D. Z. Albert. Probability in the E verett picture. In S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace, editors, Many Worlds? E verett, Quantum Theory and Reality . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Bacciagaluppi

    G. Bacciagaluppi. Is logic empirical? In K. Engesser, D. Gabbay, and D. Lehmann, editors, The Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures. Elsevier, 2007

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    L. E. Ballentine. Quantum Mechanics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1990

    work page 1990

  8. [9]

    Bassi, M

    A. Bassi, M. Dorato, and H. Ulbricht. Collapse models: A theoretical, experimental and philosophical review. Entropy, 25: 0 645, 2023. doi:10.3390/e25040645

    doi:10.3390/e25040645 2023

Show all 59 references
  1. [10]

    J. S. Bell. On the E instein- P odolsky- R osen paradox. Physics, 1: 0 195--200, 1964. Reprinted in J.S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp.14-21

    1964

  2. [11]

    J. S. Bell. On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 38: 0 447--452, 1966. Reprinted in bellbook , pp.\,1--13

    1966

  3. [12]

    J. S. Bell. Bertlmann's socks and the nature of reality. Journal de Physique, 42: 0 C2 41--61, 1981. Reprinted in bellbook , pp.\,139--158

    1981

  4. [13]

    J. S. Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987

    1987

  5. [14]

    D. Bohm. A S uggested I nterpretation of Q uantum T heory in T erms of `` H idden'' V ariables, i. Physical Review, 85: 0 166--179, 1952 a

    1952

  6. [15]

    D. Bohm. A S uggested I nterpretation of Q uantum T heory in T erms of `` H idden'' V ariables, ii. Physical Review, 85: 0 180--193, 1952 b

    1952

  7. [16]

    Cartwright

    N. Cartwright. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  8. [17]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo \"e . Quantum Mechanics, volume 1. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1977

    1977

  9. [18]

    M. Dickson. Quantum logic is alive (it is true it is false). Philosophy of Science, 68: 0 S274--S287, 2001

    2001

  10. [19]

    Di \'o si

    L. Di \'o si. A universal master equation for the gravitational violations of quantum mechanics. Physics Letters, 120: 0 377--381, 1987

    1987

  11. [20]

    P. Dirac. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press, 1930

    1930

  12. [21]

    Dupr \'e

    J. Dupr \'e . The disunity of science. Mind, XCII: 0 321--346, 1983

    1983

  13. [22]

    H. I. Everett. R elative S tate F ormulation of Q uantum M echanics. Review of Modern Physics, 29: 0 454--462, 1957

    1957

  14. [23]

    C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack. QB ism and the G reeks: why a quantum state does not represent an element of physical reality. Physica Scripta, 90: 0 015104, 2015. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/90/1/015104

    2015 doi

  15. [24]

    C. A. Fuchs, N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack. An introduction to QB ism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 82: 0 749--754, 2014. doi:10.1119/1.4874855

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    A. Gleason. Measures on the closed subspaces of a H ilbert space. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 6: 0 885--893, 1957

    1957

  17. [26]

    Goldstein

    S. Goldstein. Bohmian mechanics. In E. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 edition). 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/qm-bohm/

    2017

  18. [27]

    Harrigan and R

    N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens. E instein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of states. Foundations of Physics, 40: 0 125, 2010. doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9347-0

    2010 doi

  19. [28]

    Hemmo and O

    M. Hemmo and O. Shenker. The preferred basis problem in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: why decoherence does not solve it. Synthese, 200: 0 1--25, 2022. doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03713-y

    2022 doi

  20. [29]

    Huggett, N

    N. Huggett, N. Linnemann, and M. D. Schneider. Quantum Gravity in a Laboratory? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023. doi:10.1017/9781009327541

    2023 doi

  21. [30]

    E. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical Review, 106: 0 620, 1957 a

    1957

  22. [31]

    E. Jaynes. Information theory and statistical mechanics ii. Physical Review, 108: 0 171, 1957 b

    1957

  23. [32]

    Kochen and E

    S. Kochen and E. Specker. The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17: 0 59--87, 1967

    1967

  24. [33]

    M. Leifer. Is the quantum state real? an extended review of -ontology theorems. Quanta, 3: 0 67--155, 2014. doi:10.12743/quanta.v3i1.22

    2014 doi

  25. [34]

    Leighton

    T. Leighton. Quantum theory and novel scientific language: Defending a pragmatist view. Philosophy of Science, 92: 0 1291--1301, 2025. doi:10.1017/psa.2025.10128

    2025

  26. [35]

    D. Lewis. Attitudes De Dicto and De Se. Philosophical Review, 88: 0 513--543, 1979. Reprinted in David Lewis, Philosophical Papers, Volume II (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986)

    1979

  27. [36]

    D. Lewis. A subjectivist's guide to objective chance. In R. C. Jeffrey, editor, Studies in Inductive Logic and Probability, volume II. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1980. Reprinted, with postscripts, in David Lewis, Philosophical Papers, Volume II (Oxford Universit...

    1980

  28. [37]

    D. Lewis. Survival and identity. In Philosophical Papers, volume 1. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983

    1983

  29. [38]

    P. Lewis. Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/978019046982

    2016

  30. [39]

    P. J. Lewis. Uncertainty and probability for branching selves. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38: 0 1--14, 2007

    2007

  31. [41]

    T. Maudlin. Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2019. doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77hrx

    2019 doi

  32. [43]

    D. Parfit. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1984

    1984

  33. [44]

    R. Penrose. On gravity's role in quantum state reduction. General Relativity and Gravitation, 28: 0 581--600, 1996

    1996

  34. [45]

    A. Peres. Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993

    1993

  35. [46]

    J. Perry. The problem of the essential indexical. Nous, 13: 0 3--21, 1979

    1979

  36. [48]

    M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics, 8: 0 476, 2011. doi:doi.org/10.1038/nphys2309

    2011 doi

  37. [49]

    H. Putnam. Is logic empirical? In R. Cohen and M. Wartofsky, editors, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5, pages 216--241. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1968. Reprinted as `The Logic of Quantum Mechanics' in H. Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers,...

    1968

  38. [50]

    M. Redhead. Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987

    1987

  39. [51]

    C. Rovelli. Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35: 0 1637, 1996. Substantially revised version at arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002

    1996 arXiv

  40. [52]

    Saunders

    S. Saunders. Complementarity and scientific rationality. Foundations of Physics, 35: 0 347--372, 2005. doi:10.1007/s10701-004-1982-x

    2005 doi

  41. [53]

    Saunders and D

    S. Saunders and D. Wallace. Branching and uncertainty. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59: 0 293--305, 2008. doi:10.1093/bjps/axn029

    2008 doi

  42. [54]

    B. C. Van Fraassen. The Scientific Image. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1980

    1980

  43. [55]

    von Neumann

    J. von Neumann. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955

    1955

  44. [56]

    D. Wallace. The interpretation of quantum mechanics. In D. Rickles, editor, The A shgate Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Physics , pages 197--261. Ashgate, Burlington, VT, 2008. doi:10.4324/9781315612676. Available online at http://arxiv.org/ under the title ``The Quan...

    2008 doi

  45. [57]

    D. Wallace. The Emergent Multiverse: Quantum Theory according to the E verett Interpretation . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546961.001.0001

    2012

  46. [58]

    D. Wallace. What is orthodox quantum mechanics? In A. Cordero, editor, Philosophers Look at Quantum Mechanics, pages 285--309. Springer, Switzerland, 2019. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15659-6\_17

    2019 doi

  47. [60]

    D. Wallace. Philosophy of Physics: a Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198814320.001.0001

    2021

  48. [61]

    D. Wallace. Stating structural realism: mathematics-first approaches to physics and metaphysics. In J. Hawthorne, editor, Philosophical Perspectives Volume 36: Metaphysics, pages 345--378. Wiley-Blackwell, 2022. doi:10.1111/phpe.12172

    2022 doi

  49. [62]

    D. Wallace. The sky is blue, and other reasons quantum mechanics is not underdetermined by evidence. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 13: 0 1--29, 2023. doi:10.1007/s13194-023-00557-2

    2023 doi

  50. [63]

    Weinberg

    S. Weinberg. Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139236799

    2013 doi

  51. [64]

    A. Wilson. The Nature of Contingency: Quantum Physics as Modal Realism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198846215.001.0001

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.