{
  "annotation_id": "9a1aa855-1f29-42e6-bb72-ee51a8b6fd06",
  "date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:35.133000Z",
  "date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:35.133000Z",
  "file_hash": "c80b3637eca445f627cb47e6b2479dc188a2d2aac12a3c4e6142e6c43b35f3b6",
  "private": false,
  "record": {
    "abstract": "Byrne and Hall (1999) criticized the argument of Chalmers (1996) in favor of\nthe Everett-style interpretation. They claimed to show ``the deep and\nunderappreciated flaw in ANY Everett-style interpretation\u0027\u0027. I will argue that\nit is possible to interpret Chalmers\u0027s writing in such a way that most of the\ncriticism by Byrne and Hall does not apply. In any case their general criticism\nof the many-worlds interpretation is unfounded. The recent recognition that the\nEverett-style interpretations are good (if not the best) interpretations of\nquantum mechanics has, therefore, not been negated.",
    "arxiv_id": "quant-ph/0001057",
    "authors": [
      "L. Vaidman"
    ],
    "categories": [
      "quant-ph"
    ],
    "title": "Discussion: Byrne and Hall on Everett and Chalmers",
    "url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0001057"
  },
  "schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
  "source": {
    "execution_id": "7d9c528c-4f42-4704-bfb6-09b512502a5e",
    "id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
    "type": "Model",
    "variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
    "version": "0.1.0"
  },
  "user_id": 1000002
}