Not really—in classical physics you can always take a single uncertain state and “decompose” it into an ensemble of sharp states and then “re-collect” them by re-computing the probabilities, but that’s purely a bookkeeping trick for ignorance. Here’s why you can’t carry the Many-Worlds idea any further classically:

Mathematical decomposition vs. physical superposition

• In classical stat-mech you write a probability density ρ(x,p) as an integral over point-masses (Dirac δ’s), or you expand a signal in Fourier components. That’s exactly “transform into infinite pieces, then invert the transform.”

• But none of those pieces ever existed as separate, real “worlds.” They’re just mathematical ingredients. You never physically split the real system.

Collapse = Bayesian update

• In classical physics “collapse” is just updating your probability distribution when you learn new data (Bayes’ rule).

• You didn’t make the other branches go away by a real physical process—you merely threw away the possibilities you know can’t happen.

Why quantum is different

• Quantum superpositions are taken (in MWI) to be real, co-existing amplitudes that literally decohere into non-interfering branches.

• The “collapse” in Many-Worlds is only your subjective jump from “I see a spread-out wave” to “I see one definite outcome in my branch.” The other branches keep going, but you never interact with them again.

Bottom line: sure, you can always decompose any classical uncertainty into “many pieces” and recombine them, but nothing physical ever splits or recombines in the way quantum branches do. All you get is a more elaborate way to track your ignorance, not a true multitude of parallel universes.

Himanshu Pandey . Can you kindly clarify how is it that you answered a physics question- that does make some sense I might add, and your profile stating that your main interest is history. Is it an AI generated answer. I don't mind but like to know before giving a reply. regards.

I have some interest in physics too, which is why I gave an answer. The explanation you’re referring to is AI‑generated — it doesn’t come from a person, but from a language model trained to respond across many fields, including physics and history. So while I might be more focused on history, I’m also genuinely interested in physics, and that’s why I tried to answer.