Zero Worlds · source record · paper

Algorithmic Idealism: What Should You Believe to Experience Next?

Müller, M. P. · 2026

AI-verified citationSRC-MULLER-2026

identifier / locator: Foundations of Physics 56: 11. DOI: 10.1007/s10701-026-00913-1
url: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-026-00913-1
verification note: Springer listing, PhilPapers record, and arXiv preprint (2412.02826) located and cross-checked 2026-08-22; the Springer page itself sits behind a redirect wall, so content characterization follows the arXiv abstract and Müller's own aid exposition, which presents this paper's formulation. 2026-10-21: the reading tool reaches the text through the open-access copy OpenAlex lists for this DOI, arXiv:2412.02826v2 (32 pages, dated 24 July 2025), and the operator read its conclusions in full. Locators in later records name that PDF's pages. Wording in the Springer version may differ slightly.
reliability notes: The current conceptual formulation: the Self States and State Change postulates, Restriction A, and the treatment of simulation, duplication, and Boltzmann-brain scenarios.
Open access; single-author.

Evidence drawn from this source

Qualifies· moderateZW-E002

Müller 2026: the two-postulate formulation, and quantum reconstruction named as unfinished

what the source states: The Foundations of Physics paper reformulates the framework as two postulates (Self States; State Change), argues that persistent enigmas — the Boltzmann brain problem, extended Wigner's-friend scenarios, Parfit's teletransportation paradox, the simulation hypothesis — stem from asking "what is the case?" instead of "what should I expect to experience next?", and treats the genuinely quantum reconstruction as an explicit open research target, contrasting the framework with operational setups in which agents are already assumed to be jointly embedded in one physical system.
what we infer: Filed as "qualifies" deliberately: the same paper that gives the framework its cleanest statement also concedes, from the inside, that the quantum bridge is unbuilt. Both facts should travel together — this is the proponent doing what the MPI case's proponents did in "Nailing Jelly": publishing the limitation.
limitations: Characterized from the arXiv abstract (2412.02826) and the author's exposition; the Springer full text sits behind a redirect wall and was not retrieved this run.
Added 2026-10-22: the paper's conclusions have since been read from its open arXiv copy and are quoted in ZW-E023, which states the quantum test and the open problems in the author's own words.

Müller, M. P. (2026)AI-verified citationZW-C004 ZW-C002 ZW-C503

Supports· strongZW-E023

Müller 2026 (conclusions): quantum phenomena are the framework's test, and resemblance does not count

what the source states: In the paper's conclusions Müller names "two main open technical problems". The first is the bit model's lack of forgetting, "which is unmotivated, unrealistic, and an artefact of the way that Solomonoff induction has been formulated in Algorithmic Information Theory". The second is that "a successful formalization of algorithmic idealism should predict some phenomenal aspects of Quantum Theory". Its target is "phenomena that are genuinely quantum, such as the violation of Bell inequalities together with compliance with the no-signalling principle" (p. 28). An explanation of Bell violation "has been sketched in [2], but it needs further elaboration". He adds: "Note that it is not enough to point at mathematical elements" that resemble those of quantum theory, since "the main question is whether the statistical results of experiments are predicted to behave in genuinely nonclassical ways". Building the formalism in would defeat the test: "it would be methodologically wrong to build the quantum formalism into algorithmic idealism by construction" (p. 29).
what we infer: The framework's peer-reviewed statement agrees with the case on two points. It names the quantum derivation as open (ZW-C002), and it sets the same bar this case borrows from Spekkens (ZW-C502): nonclassical statistics, not resembling equations. This record also supersedes the abstract-level characterization in ZW-E002 with the paper's own words, and quotes the erasure problem (ZW-C504) from the published paper rather than the author's web page.
limitations: Read from the arXiv version dated 24 July 2025. The Springer version was not separately compared.
The proponent setting his own test is not evidence that the test can or cannot be passed.

Müller, M. P. (2026)AI-verified citationZW-C002 ZW-C502 ZW-C504