is even more pervasive, and more confusing, when the consequences of the process are discussed. For example, [@Sch p. 5] states:

> \[T\]he coupling to the environment now defines the observable physical properties of the system. At the same time, quantum coherence, a measure for the “quantumness” of the system, is delocalized into the entangled system–environment state, which effectively removes it from our observation.

in the classic [@Zur p. 5] Zurek writes:

> \[S\]ystems usually regarded as classical suffer (or benefit) from the natural loss of quantum coherence, which “leaks out” into the environment... The resulting “decoherence” cannot be ignored when one addresses the problem of the reduction of the quantum mechanical wave packet: Decoherence imposes, in effect, the required “embargo” on the potential outcomes by allowing the observer to maintain records of alternatives but to be aware of only one of the branches – one of the “decoherent histories” in the nomenclature of Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle...

and Crull gives us:

> Decoherence of a system will suppress to extraordinary degree interference terms in the decohered basis, such that further interactions will practically always “see” the system in an eigenstate of the basis or bases most affected by 