Why do objective collapse theories prohibit restoration when isolated systems theoretically allow partial coherence recovery?

Your question asks about a deep tension in collapse theory: why can't objective collapse models preserve *partial* coherence recovery that isolated quantum systems seem to allow in principle?

The key insight comes from understanding what objective collapse theories fundamentally do. They introduce a *physical, irreversible mechanism* that converts superposition into definite outcomes [AG-2026.02-033]. This is the whole point—to replace the "measurement problem" with real, non-subjective wavefunction collapse.

Here's the catch: once collapse has occurred and created macroscopic classicality, reversing it would require *undoing* that irreversibility. But [AG-2024.03-2168] shows that measurement outcomes emerge via *entropy increase*—the second law of thermodynamics drives the transition from quantum superposition to classical definiteness. You cannot spontaneously reverse an entropy-increasing process in an isolated system without violating thermodynamics.

More directly: [AG-2024.01-2122] demonstrates that even specially protected quantum states ("decoherence-free subspaces") cannot shield against spontaneous collapse. Once collapse occurs, there is no protected refuge to which coherence can return. The collapse is *universal*—it doesn't care about the system's isolation or structure.

The physical picture is this: objective collapse theories don't just suppress interference; they *erase* the possibility of interference by fundamentally altering the quantum state. Coherence recovery would require that collapsed degrees of freedom remain entangled with the environment in a reversible way—but that's precisely what decoherence-free protection *cannot* do against collapse, because collapse is a primary modification to the laws themselves, not a secondary environmental effect.

In short: isolation allows coherence recovery only if the collapse never happened. But collapse theories posit that collapse *does* happen as a fundamental law. There's no getting around that.

The preprints provided don't directly address why restoration is theoretically prohibited under isolated conditions—you'd need papers explicitly comparing collapse models to reversibility theorems in closed systems.