One-World Realism

One-world realism is LRT’s position on quantum ontology: preserving the mathematical insights of Many-Worlds while restoring a single actuality.

The Many-Worlds Picture

Everett’s Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) makes three key claims:

1. Wave function realism: The quantum state is ontologically real
2. No collapse mechanism: Schrödinger evolution is universal
3. All branches actual: Every measurement outcome occurs in some branch; the universe constantly splits

MWI elegantly avoids collapse but at a cost: infinite parallel worlds, with all outcomes equally real.

What MWI Gets Right

LRT agrees with MWI on:

Wave function is ontologically real. The quantum state is not “just math” or epistemic uncertainty. It describes genuine structure in $I_\infty$.

Collapse is not a special mechanism. There is no dynamical collapse process requiring new physics. “Measurement” is not a fundamental concept requiring special treatment.

No hidden variables. The $I_\infty$ state is genuinely indeterminate before measurement, not secretly determinate but unknown.

What LRT Changes

LRT denies that all branches are equally actual. Instead:

Possibilities are real (they exist in $I_\infty$)

One actuality ($L_3$ enforce a single determinate outcome)

Other possibilities remain in $I_\infty$, not in parallel branches

The Key Distinction

In MWI, “branching” is ontological multiplication—the universe literally splits into copies.

In LRT, “branching” is the structure of $I_\infty$—all possibilities are there, but only one actualizes.

Born Rule and Branch Weights

MWI faces the probability problem: if all branches are equally real, why do we observe Born-rule statistics? Decision-theoretic derivations are contested.

LRT avoids this problem entirely:

• The Born rule is derived from vehicle-invariance (not decision theory)
• Probabilities describe objective dispositions toward one actual outcome
• No need to explain why we’re “more likely” to find ourselves in high-weight branches

The Born rule weights don’t describe “how much reality each branch gets.” They describe the objective disposition of a single world toward its possible futures.

Ontological Parsimony

MWI multiplies worlds beyond necessity. Every quantum event splits reality into as many branches as there are outcomes. This continues recursively—leading to a vast (perhaps infinite) multiverse.

LRT is ontologically parsimonious:

• One actual world
• One evolving configuration in $A_\Omega$
• Possibilities in $I_\infty$ (which exists regardless of whether possibilities are “real” in some metaphysical sense)

The mathematical structure of quantum mechanics is preserved. The ontological inflation is avoided.

Measurement Without Collapse

How does LRT explain definite outcomes without collapse?

Measurement is the interface between $I_\infty$ and $A_\Omega$. When a quantum state couples to a macroscopic record:

1. The $I_\infty$ structure encodes outcome possibilities
2. $L_3$ enforcement selects exactly one outcome for instantiation
3. The record is determinately one thing or another

This is not a dynamical process but a category transition—from representing possibilities to instantiating actuality.

What Remains

LRT does not explain:

• Why THIS outcome rather than THAT outcome
• The physical criterion marking the $I_\infty$/$A_\Omega$ boundary

These may be irreducibly stochastic (first question) or empirically determined (second question). Neither requires Many-Worlds ontology.

Related Papers