state which indicates spin up (and not down) or spin down (and not up). ([@maudlin95] p. 7.)

To see that these assumptions are incompatible (though not strictly logically inconsistent, see [@maudlin95] p. 10), one has to consider a situation in which the system being measured is not in an eigenstate of the measured observable. In that case, according to 1.B, the state of the combined system consisting of the measured system together with the measuring apparatus evolves into a superposition of eigenstates of the measured and the “pointer” observable, whose different possible values correspond to macroscopically different configurations of the “pointer” (or display) of the apparatus. This state doesn’t single out or prefer by itself any of the possible values of the measured observable of the measured system nor of the pointer observable pertaining to the apparatus. Nevertheless, according to 1.A, it provides a complete description of the combined system, including both the measured system and the apparatus. On the basis of this assumption we have to conclude that none of the possible values of the measured and the pointer observables is actually realised (or all at once, as Everettians would conclude). Assumption 1.C, however, requires that at the end 