Many-Worlds (Everett)
pending
No known falsification criterion — empirically equivalent to bare unitary QM
A formal falsification checker, written in Lean 4, for interpretations of quantum mechanics and simulation-theory signatures. An entry closes only when a Lean theorem derives a contradiction from its axioms plus a cited experimental result — nothing here is marked falsified on informal argument alone.
14 claims tracked: 1 falsified, 3 constrained, 8 pending, 2 out of scope.
No known falsification criterion — empirically equivalent to bare unitary QM
lambda=1e-16 s^-1 at rC=1e-7m not yet excluded (Wolf et al., STE-QUEST, arXiv:2211.15412, 2022)
Weak (GRW-scale) parameter regime not yet excluded; interferometric bounds ~5e-6 s^-1 at rC=1e-7m are many orders above it
lambda=4e-8+-2 s^-1 at rC=1e-7m excluded by IGEX X-ray bound of 6.8e-12 s^-1 (Piscicchia et al. 2017, arXiv:1710.01973); confirmed by Wolf et al. 2022, arXiv:2211.15412
Falsifiable via collapse-time vs. superposition mass/size experiments
Literature reports violation of local-friendliness inequalities (Bong et al.); not yet a Lean theorem
Empirically equivalent to standard QM; visualization only, not falsifiable by this method
Falsifiable via UHE cosmic-ray anisotropy/cutoff (Pierre Auger data); no specific bound formalized against a candidate lattice spacing yet (Beane, Davoudi, Savage, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 148, 2014)
Falsifiable via energy-dependent photon arrival-time dispersion (Fermi-LAT GRB timing); no specific bound formalized against a candidate discretization model yet
Fermilab Holometer (Chou et al. 2017, arXiv:1703.08503) reports a null result for the originally proposed model; not yet encoded as a Lean falsification — closing it needs the specific reported bound, not a recalled summary
Discretizes Hilbert Space to rational squared-amplitudes/phases (basis parameter L), giving finite qubit information capacity N_max ~ 200-1000 (estimated via Diosi-Penrose gravitational collapse energy) above which algorithms needing maximal N-qubit entanglement (e.g. Shor's) lose quantum advantage; falsifiable in principle via factoring of a sufficiently large RSA integer (e.g. 2048-bit) using genuinely maximally-entangled qubit counts exceeding N_max, but N_max estimate is order-of-magnitude only and 'maximal Hilbert-space spread' is not independently operationalized, so a null result (no successful factoring) is not yet a clean confirmation vs. ordinary noise/engineering limits (Palmer, arXiv:2510.02877, 2026)
Bound holds in all tested regimes (Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 23, 287, 1981) but is a weak discriminator for simulation theory specifically — also just standard thermodynamics, doesn't distinguish simulated from non-simulated substrates
Weakest entry in this family: no proposed experiment cleanly separates this from standard quantum measurement/decoherence theory; no rigorous formalization found
Probabilistic/philosophical arguments, not physical claims; no experiment bears on either (Bostrom, Philosophical Quarterly 53, 2003; standard fine-tuning literature repurposed as sim-evidence)