interpretational issues in [@Oko.Sud:14] is unjustified because quantum decoherence “addresses precisely those aspects of the measurement problem many believe require resolution before going onwards, and for resolving new issues within relativistic applications of the theory” [@Crull p. 1020]. Crull also maintains that decoherence is all is needed in order to explain the quantum-to-classical transition and the emergence of classicality. It seems, then, that it is not that she believes that the issues we raise, regarding, e.g., the necessity to use an observer independent version of quantum mechanics in cosmological settings, are not critical, but that she thinks that decoherence is capable of resolving them.

The objective of this work is twofold. We will defend our position by pointing out some of the most glaring shortcomings in [@Crull]. However, before doing so, we will explain in detail why decoherence fails as a tool to resolve foundational questions in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum-to-classical transition. The plan for the manuscript is as follows: in section \[Deco\] we will critically evaluate the relevance of decoherence in foundational discussions, in section \[Crull\] we will directly address the criticism of Crull and in section \[Con\] we will present our conclusions.

